Reliability and acceptability of measuring sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) to assess respiratory muscle strength in older adults: a preliminary study
Reliability and acceptability of measuring sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) to assess respiratory muscle strength in older adults: a preliminary study
Background: sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and peak oral inspiratory flow (PIF) are portable, relatively new methods for indirect measurement of respiratory muscle strength. The reliability and acceptability of these measures were investigated in older adults.
Methods: twenty one self-reported healthy adults, aged 65-84 years (Mean 73.5; SD 6.4 years). Participants were tested in a sitting position on two occasions, one week apart. The best of three attempts for PIF measured through the mouth, and five for each nostril for SNIP were recorded. Reliability was tested using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and Bland and Altman analysis. Feedback on the measures in relation to ease of completion and preference was obtained using a semi-structured interview.
Results: between-day reliability of SNIP and PIF were ICC3,1 0.76 (95% CI 0.49-0.9) and 0.92 (0.81-0.97) respectively. Standard error of measurement for SNIP (11.94 cmH2O) and MDC (33.10 cmH2O) were at the least 61% higher than for PIF. The participants reported difficulties in performing SNIP, rating it as being less easy and uncomfortable to perform than PIF, with a higher rate of missing data for SNIP due to participants’ dislike of test.
Conclusions: the wide range of SNIP readings, lower ICC value and negative user feedback is suggestive of a less robust and unacceptable clinical measure. PIF showed excellent reliability and acceptability and is therefore recommended for assessing inspiratory muscle strength in older people without known obstructive lung disease
Barnes, Nicola
4ec5f15a-362a-459c-8b50-f6b15aa94081
Agyapong-Badu, Sandra
a48029a3-7908-47c3-84ff-0ad6898cbb1c
Walsh, Bronagh
5818243e-048d-4b4b-88c5-231b0e419427
Stokes, Maria
71730503-70ce-4e67-b7ea-a3e54579717f
Samuel, Dinesh
03b00738-9b9c-4c0a-a85a-cf43fc0932fc
16 September 2013
Barnes, Nicola
4ec5f15a-362a-459c-8b50-f6b15aa94081
Agyapong-Badu, Sandra
a48029a3-7908-47c3-84ff-0ad6898cbb1c
Walsh, Bronagh
5818243e-048d-4b4b-88c5-231b0e419427
Stokes, Maria
71730503-70ce-4e67-b7ea-a3e54579717f
Samuel, Dinesh
03b00738-9b9c-4c0a-a85a-cf43fc0932fc
Barnes, Nicola, Agyapong-Badu, Sandra, Walsh, Bronagh, Stokes, Maria and Samuel, Dinesh
(2013)
Reliability and acceptability of measuring sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) to assess respiratory muscle strength in older adults: a preliminary study.
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.
(doi:10.1007/s40520-013-0146-2).
Abstract
Background: sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and peak oral inspiratory flow (PIF) are portable, relatively new methods for indirect measurement of respiratory muscle strength. The reliability and acceptability of these measures were investigated in older adults.
Methods: twenty one self-reported healthy adults, aged 65-84 years (Mean 73.5; SD 6.4 years). Participants were tested in a sitting position on two occasions, one week apart. The best of three attempts for PIF measured through the mouth, and five for each nostril for SNIP were recorded. Reliability was tested using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and Bland and Altman analysis. Feedback on the measures in relation to ease of completion and preference was obtained using a semi-structured interview.
Results: between-day reliability of SNIP and PIF were ICC3,1 0.76 (95% CI 0.49-0.9) and 0.92 (0.81-0.97) respectively. Standard error of measurement for SNIP (11.94 cmH2O) and MDC (33.10 cmH2O) were at the least 61% higher than for PIF. The participants reported difficulties in performing SNIP, rating it as being less easy and uncomfortable to perform than PIF, with a higher rate of missing data for SNIP due to participants’ dislike of test.
Conclusions: the wide range of SNIP readings, lower ICC value and negative user feedback is suggestive of a less robust and unacceptable clinical measure. PIF showed excellent reliability and acceptability and is therefore recommended for assessing inspiratory muscle strength in older people without known obstructive lung disease
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 16 September 2013
Organisations:
Faculty of Health Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 356615
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/356615
ISSN: 1594-0667
PURE UUID: 7341f733-a713-4e58-819b-418e5ad70988
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 16 Sep 2013 11:25
Last modified: 17 Apr 2024 01:39
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Nicola Barnes
Author:
Sandra Agyapong-Badu
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
