Queiroz Pires Thiago, Prata Martinez Bruno, Marcos Leilane, Resende Ramos Ísis, Pinheiro Virgínia, Gomes Neto Mansueto
Universidade Federal da Bahia - Programa de Pós-graduação em Medicina e Saúde.
Mater Dei Hospital.
Can J Respir Ther. 2025 Mar 6;61:33-43. doi: 10.29390/001c.131842. eCollection 2025.
It is essential that diagnostic tests for evaluating respiratory muscles have proven reliability and validity. This study aims to synthesize studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of volitional tests used to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance.
A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and SciELO. Primary studies that evaluated the reliability and validity of volitional tests to measure respiratory muscle strength and endurance were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT).
Twenty-eight studies were included in this review, describing the psychometric properties of eight different approaches to measuring respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Respiratory muscle strength and endurance were assessed using static maximal inspiratory pressure, static maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic maximal inspiratory pressure, sustained maximal inspiratory pressure, nasal inspiratory pressure, manual respiratory muscle measurements, and maximal incremental inspiratory muscle performance. Overall, the studies included were of good methodological quality. Data related to validity and reliability showed excellent results for the maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, with maximum ICC values of 0.979 (CI 0.947-0.991) and 0.989 (CI 0.022-0.001), respectively. Other tests evaluated did not present high reliability and validity.
This review concluded that volitional tests vary in reliability for measures of respiratory muscle strength and endurance. The more traditional ones, such as maximum inspiratory pressure and maximum expiratory pressure, presented higher validity and reliability values compared to the other tests.
评估呼吸肌的诊断测试必须具有经过验证的可靠性和有效性。本研究旨在综合评估用于测量呼吸肌力量和耐力的自主测试的心理测量特性的研究。
在MEDLINE/PubMed、LILACS、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、Scopus和SciELO中进行了系统的文献检索。纳入评估测量呼吸肌力量和耐力的自主测试的可靠性和有效性的原始研究。使用批判性评估工具(CAT)评估纳入研究的质量。
本综述纳入了28项研究,描述了测量呼吸肌力量和耐力的八种不同方法的心理测量特性。使用静态最大吸气压力、静态最大呼气压力、动态最大吸气压力、持续最大吸气压力、鼻吸气压力、手动呼吸肌测量和最大递增吸气肌性能来评估呼吸肌力量和耐力。总体而言,纳入的研究方法质量良好。与有效性和可靠性相关的数据显示,最大吸气压力和最大呼气压力的结果极佳,最大ICC值分别为0.979(CI 0.947-0.991)和0.989(CI 0.022-0.001)。评估的其他测试没有呈现出高可靠性和有效性。
本综述得出结论,自主测试在测量呼吸肌力量和耐力方面的可靠性各不相同。与其他测试相比,更传统的测试,如最大吸气压力和最大呼气压力,具有更高的有效性和可靠性值。