Key result
The Pressure Biofeedback Unit showed low correlation with Maximal Inspiratory Pressure (r=0.40, p=0.01) and Maximal Expiratory Pressure (r=0.33, p=0.04), failing to predict respiratory muscle strength.
Why the study?
Does the Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU) accurately estimate respiratory muscle strength compared to manovacuometry in healthy subjects?
Cross-Sectional (n=39)
Does the Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU) accurately estimate respiratory muscle strength compared to manovacuometry in healthy subjects?
Effect estimate: r = 0.40 for MIP; r = 0.33 for MEP
p-value: p=0.01 for MIP; 0.04 for MEP
The Pressure Biofeedback Unit is not an accurate method for predicting respiratory muscle strength compared to standard manovacuometry.
PBU should not replace manovacuometry for respiratory muscle strength assessment; leaves open its utility in patients or other contexts.
OBJECTIVE: The Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU) is used to assess the transversus abdominis muscle activity in order to determine the effectiveness of segmental stabilization, but not to verify its accuracy for measuring the pressure values of breathing from transversus abdominis activation. The objective of this study was to cross-validate the PBU pressure evaluated in transversus abdominis muscle activation with the respiratory pressure assessed through manovacuometry in order to verify the extent to which the PBU can be used to indirectly evaluate the strength of the respiratory muscle in both men and women and verify the reliability of the methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 39 healthy subjects. METHODS: Manovacuometry and Pressure Biofeedback Unit tests were performed in three days each with three replications: 1) Maximal Inspiratory Pressure; 2) Maximal Expiratory Pressure; and 3) Pressure Biofeedback Unit. RESULTS: Both tests showed good reliability and low correlation between the Pressure Biofeedback Unit and Maximal Inspiratory Pressure (r = 0.40; p = 0.01) and Maximal Expiratory Pressure (r = 0.33; p = 0.04). High differences were observed between pressures and wide limits of agreement in Bland-Altman analysis. CONCLUSION: It seems that the Pressure Biofeedback Unit is not able to effectively predict the respiratory muscles' strength as routinely evaluated through the use of the manovacuometry presenting a low cross-validation and good reliability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=39). Pressure Biofeedback Unit vs. Manovacuometry was evaluated on Correlation between Pressure Biofeedback Unit and respiratory pressure (Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and Maximal Expiratory Pressure) (r = 0.40 for MIP; r = 0.33 for MEP, p=0.01 for MIP; 0.04 for MEP). The Pressure Biofeedback Unit showed low correlation with Maximal Inspiratory Pressure (r=0.40, p=0.01) and Maximal Expiratory Pressure (r=0.33, p=0.04), failing to predict respiratory muscle strength.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: