Dataset Information

Reliability of SNIP test and optimal number of maneuvers in 6-11 years healthy children.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) is a voluntary inspiratory maneuver measured through a plug occluding one nostril. The investigation of the number of maneuvers necessary to reach the highest peak of SNIP in pediatric populations has been inconsistent. Thus, this study aimed to assess the reliability of SNIP in healthy children aged 6 to 11 years according to sex and age group, and to determine the optimal number of SNIP maneuvers for this age group.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included healthy children with normal pulmonary function. We performed 12 to 20 SNIP maneuvers, with a 30 s rest between each maneuver. The reliability was tested using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC), and Bland-Altman analysis for agreement.

Results

A total of 121 healthy children (62 girls [51%]) were included in this study. The ICC and corresponding confidence interval (CI) between the highest measure and the first reproducible maneuver were 0.752 (0.656-0.824), SEM = 10.37 cmH2O, and MDC = 28.74 cmH2O. For children aged 6 to 7 years, the ICC was 0.669 (0.427-0.822), SEM = 10.76 cmH2O and MDC = 29.82 cmH2O; for children aged 8 to 11 years, the ICC was 0.774 (0.662-0.852), SEM = 9.74 cmH2O, and MDC = 26.05 cmH2O. For girls, the ICC was 0.817 (0.706-0.889), SEM = 9.40 cmH2O and MDC = 26.05 cmH2O; for boys, the ICC was 0.671 (0.487-0.798), SEM = 11.51 cmH2O, and MDC = 31.90 cmH2O. Approximately 80% of the total sample reached the highest SNIP before the 10th maneuver.

Conclusions

SNIP demonstrated moderate reliability between the maneuvers in children aged 6 to 11 years; older children and girls reached the SNIP peak faster. Finally, results indicated that 12 maneuvers were sufficient for healthy children aged 6 to 11 years to achieve the highest SNIP peak.

SUBMITTER: Marcelino AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Functional connectivity (FC) has become a leading method for resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) analysis. However, the majority of the previous studies utilized pairwise, temporal synchronization-based FC. Recently, high-order FC (HOFC) methods were proposed with the idea of computing "correlation of correlations" to capture high-level, more complex associations among the brain regions. There are two types of HOFC. The first type is topographical profile similarity-based HOFC (tHOFC) and its variant, associated HOFC (aHOFC), for capturing different levels of HOFC. Instead of measuring the similarity of the original rs-fMRI signals with the traditional FC (low-order FC, or LOFC), tHOFC measures the similarity of LOFC profiles (i.e., a set of LOFC values between a region and all other regions) between each pair of brain regions. The second type is dynamics-based HOFC (dHOFC) which defines the quadruple relationship among every four brain regions by first calculating two pairwise dynamic LOFC "time series" and then measuring their temporal synchronization (i.e., temporal correlation of the LOFC fluctuations, not the BOLD fluctuations). Applications have shown the superiority of HOFC in both disease biomarker detection and individualized diagnosis than LOFC. However, no study has been carried out for the assessment of test-retest reliability of different HOFC metrics. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the reliability of the two types of HOFC methods using test-retest rs-fMRI data from 25 (12 females, age 24.48 ± 2.55 years) young healthy adults with seven repeated scans (with interval = 3-8 days). We found that all HOFC metrics have satisfactory reliability, specifically (1) fair-to-good for tHOFC and aHOFC, and (2) fair-to-moderate for dHOFC with relatively strong connectivity strength. We further give an in-depth analysis of the biological meanings of each HOFC metric and highlight their differences compared to the LOFC from the aspects of cross-level information exchanges, within-/between-network connectivity, and modulatory connectivity. In addition, how the dynamic analysis parameter (i.e., sliding window length) affects dHOFC reliability is also investigated. Our study reveals unique functional associations characterized by the HOFC metrics. Guidance and recommendations for future applications and clinical research using HOFC are provided. This study has made a further step toward unveiling more complex human brain connectome.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate feasibility, reliability and repeatability of perimetry in children.MethodsA prospective, observational study recruiting 154 children aged 5-15 years, without an ophthalmic condition that affects the visual field (controls), identified consecutively between May 2012 and November 2013 from hospital eye clinics. Perimetry was undertaken in a single sitting, with standardised protocols, in a randomised order using the Humphrey static (SITA 24-2 FAST), Goldmann and Octopus kinetic perimeters. Data collected included test duration, subjective experience and test quality (incorporating examiner ratings on comprehension of instructions, fatigue, response to visual and auditory stimuli, concentration and co-operation) to assess feasibility and reliability. Testing was repeated within 6 months to assess repeatability.ResultsOverall feasibility was very high (Goldmann=96.1%, Octopus=89% and Humphrey=100% completed the tests). Examiner rated reliability was 'good' in 125 (81.2%) children for Goldmann, 100 (64.9%) for Octopus and 98 (63.6%) for Humphrey perimetry. Goldmann perimetry was the most reliable method in children under 9 years of age. Reliability improved with increasing age (multinomial logistic regression (Goldmann, Octopus and Humphrey), p<0.001). No significant differences were found for any of the three test strategies when examining initial and follow-up data outputs (Bland-Altman plots, n=43), suggesting good test repeatability, although the sample size may preclude detection of a small learning effect.ConclusionsFeasibility and reliability of formal perimetry in children improves with age. By the age of 9 years, all the strategies used here were highly feasible and reliable. Clinical assessment of the visual field is achievable in children as young as 5 years, and should be considered where visual field loss is suspected. Since Goldmann perimetry is the most effective strategy in children aged 5-8 years and this perimeter is no longer available, further research is required on a suitable alternative for this age group.