Curtis James A, Diaz Crystal, Lee Theresa, Rameau Anaïs
Aerodigestive Innovations Research lab (AIR), Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Communication Sciences and Disorders Program, Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Teachers College of Columbia University, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Laryngoscope. 2025 Jan;135(1):263-269. doi: 10.1002/lary.31727. Epub 2024 Aug 23.
OBJECTIVE(S): The objective of this study was to characterize the level of agreement between three manometers: (1) Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI)-the reference standard for tongue, lip, and cheek strength assessments; (2) MicroRPM Respiratory Pressure Meter (MicroRPM)-the reference standard for respiratory strength assessments; and (3) Digital Pressure Manometer (DPM)-an alternative, low-cost pressure testing manometer.
Manual pressures were simultaneously applied to the IOPI and DPM, and to the MicroRPM and DPM, within a controlled laboratory setting. Agreement in pressure readings were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Lin's concordance correlation, and Bland-Altman Plots. Agreement was interpreted as "poor" if ρ < 0.90, "moderate" if ρ = 0.90 - < 0.95, "substantial" if ρ = 0.95 - < 0.99, and "excellent" if ρ ≥ 0.99.
Differences in pressure readings between the DPM and clinical reference standards were consistently present yet highly predictable. There was a median absolute difference of 2.0-3.9 kPa between the IOPI and DPM, and 4.5-9.8 cm HO between the MicroRPM and DPM. Lin's concordance revealed "substantial" agreement between the IOPI and DPM (ρ = 0.98) and the MicroRPM and DPM (ρ = 0.99).
The DPM revealed higher pressure readings when compared to the IOPI and MicroRPM. However, differences in pressure readings were relatively small, highly predictable, and yielded substantial overall agreement. These findings suggest the DPM may be a valid, lower-cost alternative for objective assessments of tongue, lip, cheek, and respiratory muscle strength. Future research should expand on the present findings in clinical patient populations.
NA Laryngoscope, 135:263-269, 2025.
本研究的目的是描述三种压力计之间的一致性水平：（1）爱荷华口腔功能仪器（IOPI）——舌、唇和颊部力量评估的参考标准；（2）MicroRPM呼吸压力计（MicroRPM）——呼吸力量评估的参考标准；以及（3）数字压力计（DPM）——一种替代的低成本压力测试压力计。
在受控的实验室环境中，同时对IOPI和DPM以及MicroRPM和DPM施加手动压力。使用描述性统计、林氏一致性相关性和布兰德-奥特曼图分析压力读数的一致性。如果ρ<0.90，则一致性被解释为“差”；如果ρ = 0.90 - <0.95，则为“中等”；如果ρ = 0.95 - <0.99，则为“高度一致”；如果ρ≥0.99，则为“优秀”。
DPM与临床参考标准之间的压力读数差异始终存在，但具有高度可预测性。IOPI和DPM之间的中位绝对差异为2.0 - 3.9kPa，MicroRPM和DPM之间为4.5 - 9.8cmH₂O。林氏一致性显示IOPI和DPM之间（ρ = 0.98）以及MicroRPM和DPM之间（ρ = 0.99）具有“高度一致”。
与IOPI和MicroRPM相比，DPM显示出更高的压力读数。然而，压力读数的差异相对较小，具有高度可预测性，并且总体一致性较高。这些发现表明DPM可能是一种有效且低成本的替代方法，用于客观评估舌、唇、颊和呼吸肌力量。未来的研究应在临床患者群体中扩展本研究结果。
无喉镜，135:263 - 269，2025年。
