Reliability of maximal respiratory nasal pressure tests in healthy young adults

Jackson C C de Lima; Vanessa R Resqueti; Ana Aline Marcelino; Jéssica Danielle M da Fonsêca; Ana Lista Paz; Fernando A Lavezzo Dias; Matias Otto-Yañez; Guilherme A F Fregonezi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287188

Reliability of maximal respiratory nasal pressure tests in healthy young adults

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 29;18(11):e0287188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287188. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ PneumoCardioVascular Lab/HUOL, Hospital Universitário Onofre Lopes, Empresa Brasileira de Serviços Hospitalares (EBSERH) & Departamento de Fisioterapia Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil.
² Laboratório de Inovação Tecnológica em Reabilitação, Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil.
³ Facultad de Fisioterapia, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, España.
⁴ Departamento de Fisiologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Paraná, Brasil.
⁵ Kinesiología, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Abstract

Introduction: Sniff nasal inspiratory (SNIP) and expiratory pressure (SNEP) may complement the assessment of respiratory muscle strength. Thus, specifying their reliability is relevant to improving the clinical consistency of both tests.

Objective: To assess the reliability of SNIP and SNEP in healthy young adults.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included self-reported healthy aged 18 to 29 years. SNIP was performed using a plug to occlude one nostril, while SNEP was conducted using a facemask. Participants performed 20 SNIP and SNEP maneuvers with 30-second intervals in between. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimum detectable change (MDC) assessed the reliability of SNIP and SNEP. Analyses were conducted between the highest peak pressure and the first reproducible maneuver in men and women.

Results: The total sample comprised 32 participants: 16 men and 16 women. The ICC, SEM, and MDC for SNIP maneuvers were 0.994 (95%CI 0.988 to 0.997), 1.820 cmH2O, and 5.043 cmH2O, respectively. For SNEP, these parameters were 0.950 (95%CI 0.897 to 0.976), 6.03 cmH2O, and 16.716 cmH2O. The SNIP and SNEP in men showed ICC of 0.992 (95%CI 0.977 to 0.997) and 0.877 (95%CI 0.648 to 0.957), SEM of 2.07 and 7.66 cmH2O, and MDC of 5.74 and 21.23 cmH2O. In women, SNIP and SNEP presented ICC of 0.992 (95%CI 0.977 to 0.997) and 0.957 (95%CI 0.878 to 0.985), SEM of 1.15 and 6.11 cmH2O, and MDC of 3.19 and 16.95 cmH2O. Also, 60% of the highest SNIPs occurred among the 11th and 20th maneuvers in men and women. In men, 55% of the highest SNEPs occurred among the 11th and 20th maneuvers; this value was 50% in women.

Conclusion: SNIP and SNEP showed excellent reliability. The reliability of SNIP and SNEP in men was good and excellent, respectively, whereas both tests had excellent reliability in women. Also, women reached the highest peak pressure faster than men in both tests.

Copyright: © 2023 de Lima et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

MeSH terms

Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Nose* / physiology
Pressure
Reproducibility of Results
Respiratory Muscles* / physiology
Young Adult

Grants and funding

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. GF 316937/2021-5 Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq VR - 305960/2021-0 - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.