• Chest · Oct 2022

    Meta Analysis

    Reproducibility of Maximum Respiratory Pressure Assessment: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.

    • Travis Cruickshank, Marcelo Flores-Opazo, Marcelo Tuesta, and Álvaro Reyes.
    • Centre for Precision Health, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia; Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, Perth, WA, Australia.
    • Chest. 2022 Oct 1; 162 (4): 828850828-850.

    BackgroundAccurate assessment of maximum respiratory pressure is vital when tracking disease progression and devising treatment strategies. Previous studies indicate a learning effect when undertaking maximum respiratory pressure measurements. The extent of this learning effect and methodologies undertaken to mitigate this learning effect have not been investigated systematically.Research QuestionWhat is the magnitude of improvements in maximum respiratory pressure in response to respiratory muscle warm-up protocols and repeated measures of maximum respiratory pressure in healthy individuals and clinical populations?MethodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases was undertaken during August 2021 for studies examining the intrarater reliability of maximum inspiratory or expiratory pressure, or both, studies developing a protocol or an intervention to obtain maximum values, and studies analyzing the reliability of repeated maneuvers in a single testing session in healthy individuals and clinical populations. Included articles were analyzed critically using two appraisal tools. Standardized mean differences with 95% CIs were calculated and corrected for the sample size as a measure of the magnitude of change in maximum respiratory pressure outcomes.ResultsOf the 1,969 articles retrieved, 32 were included in the meta-analysis. Eighteen studies included healthy individuals and 14 studies included individuals with chronic medical conditions. The overall effect of inspiratory muscle warm-up protocols was higher (effects size [ES], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63) in comparison with single testing session studies (ES, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.35) and studies performing repeated testing sessions of maximum respiratory pressure (ES, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-022).InterpretationInspiratory muscles warm-up procedures induce higher increases in maximum inspiratory pressure in comparison with single and repeated testing sessions of maximum respiratory pressure in healthy individuals. Warm-up protocols are more effective to obtain the maximum performance of inspiratory muscles in one testing session in comparison with other methods.Trial RegistryPROSPERO; No.: CRD42022304591; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.Copyright © 2022 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.