Ordiales Fernández J J, Fernández Moya A, Colubi Colubi L, Nistal de Paz F, Allende González J, Alvarez Asensio E, Rodrigo Sáez L
Sección de Neumología, Complejo Hospitalario de León.
Arch Bronconeumol. 1995 Dec;31(10):507-11.
In order to determine the validity for our population of the theoretical reference values available in the literature today, we studied respiratory muscle force by calculating maximum expiratory pressure PEmax and maximum inspiratory pressure (PImax) in 100 healthy subjects in Asturias (50 women) between 17 and 80 years-old (mean 40.4 +/- 19.3 years). We used the same methods and apparatus as Black and Hyatt and compared the results with theoretical values given by them as references corresponding to our subjects, according to age and sex. Values were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in our population for both parameters and for both men and women. In men PEmax was 69.7% and PImax was 88.5% of the theoretical values, in women PEmax was 60.9% and PImax was 82.9%. These figures indicate that the theoretical values given by Black and Hyatt are not valid for the population we studied and that normal reference values appropriate for each population, laboratory and apparatus must be obtained if valid conclusions are to be reached.
为了确定当今文献中现有理论参考值对我们所研究人群的有效性，我们对阿斯图里亚斯地区100名年龄在17至80岁（平均40.4 +/- 19.3岁）的健康受试者（50名女性）进行了呼吸肌力研究，通过计算最大呼气压力（PEmax）和最大吸气压力（PImax）。我们采用了与布莱克和海亚特相同的方法和仪器，并根据年龄和性别将结果与他们给出的作为我们受试者对应参考的理论值进行比较。在我们的研究人群中，这两个参数在男性和女性中，其数值均显著更低（p < 0.001）。在男性中，PEmax为理论值的69.7%，PImax为88.5%；在女性中，PEmax为60.9%，PImax为82.9%。这些数据表明，布莱克和海亚特给出的理论值对我们所研究的人群无效，并且如果要得出有效的结论，必须获取适合每个群体、实验室和仪器的正常参考值。
