3.8 Article

Respiratory muscle strength in asthmatic children

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 492-496

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-97772012000400010

Keywords

asthma; muscle strength; respiratory muscles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Changes in the respiratory system of asthmatics are also due to the mechanical disadvantage caused by the increased airway resistance. Objective: The study aims to evaluate the respiratory muscle strength and nutritional status of asthmatic children. Method: This is a prospective descriptive and transversal study with 50 children aged 7 to 12 years, who were placed into 2 groups, asthmatic and non-asthmatic. Respiratory muscle strength was evaluated on the basis of maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP). The nutritional status was evaluated by measuring the anthropometric data, including height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). The findings were subjected to analysis of variance, chi-square, and Student's t test, and p-values<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In our comparisons, we observed statistically significantly lower values for age, weight, and height in asthmatic patients: 8.52 +/- 1.49 years, 30.62 +/- 7.66 kg, and 129.85 +/- 10.24 cm, respectively, vs. non-asthmatic children(9.79 +/- 1.51 years, 39.92 +/- 16.57 kg, and 139.04 +/- 11.62 cm, respectively). There was no significant increase in MIP and MEP between the groups: MIP was -84.96 +/- 27.52 cmH(2)O for the asthmatic group and -88.56 +/- 26.50 cmH(2)O for the non-asthmatic group, and MEP was 64.48 +/- 19.23 cmH(2)O for asthmatic children and +66.72 +/- 16.56 cmH(2)O for non-asthmatics. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between groups, but we observed that MIP and MEP were slightly higher in the non-asthmatic group than in the asthmatic group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available