The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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
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
1594-0667
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
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).

Record type: Article

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
ORCID for Bronagh Walsh: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1008-0545
ORCID for Maria Stokes: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4204-0890
ORCID for Dinesh Samuel: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3610-8032

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
Author: Bronagh Walsh ORCID iD
Author: Maria Stokes ORCID iD
Author: Dinesh Samuel ORCID iD

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×