4.4 Article

Reference Values for Respiratory Muscle Strength in Children and Adolescents

期刊

RESPIRATION
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000485464

关键词

Respiratory muscle strength; Tension time index; Children; Adolescents; Reference values

资金

  1. Scientific Committee Physiotherapy of the Royal Dutch Society for Physiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Measurement of respiratory muscle function is important in the diagnosis of respiratory muscle disease, respiratory failure, to assess the impact of chronic diseases, and/or to evaluate respiratory muscle function after treatment. Objectives: To establish reference values for maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressure, and the tension-time index at rest in healthy children and adolescents aged 8-19 years, as well as to present sex-and age-related reference centiles normalized for demographic and anthropometric determinants. Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, demographic, anthropometric, and spirometric data were assessed, as well as data on respiratory muscle strength (P-Imax and P-Emax) and work of breathing at rest (T-T0.1), in a total of 251 children (117 boys and 134 girls; mean age 13.4 +/- 2.9 years). Reference values are presented as reference centiles developed by use of the lambda, mu, sigma method. Results: Boys had significantly higher PImax and PEmax values. Next to sex and age, fat-free mass appeared to be an important predictor of respiratory muscle strength. Reference centiles demonstrated a slight, almost linear increase in PImax with age in boys, and a less steep increase with age in girls. TT0.1 values did not differ between boys and girls and decreased linearly with age. Conclusion: This study provides reference values for respiratory muscle strength and work of breathing at rest. In addition to sex and age, fat-free mass was found to be an important predictor of respiratory muscle strength in boys and girls. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据