OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of respiratory inductive plethysmography (RIP) calibration in three different positions. METHODS: We evaluated 28 healthy subjects (18 women and 10 men), with a mean age of 25.4 ± 3.9 years. For all of the subjects, isovolume maneuver calibration (ISOCAL) and qualitative diagnostic calibration (QDC) were used in the orthostatic, sitting, and supine positions. In order to evaluate the concordance between the two calibration methods, we used ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: The values of the constant of proportionality (K) were significantly different between ISOCAL and QDC in the three positions evaluated: 1.6 ± 0.5 vs. 2.0 ± 1.2, in the supine position, 2.5 ± 0.8 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 in the sitting position, and 2.0 ± 0.8 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 in the orthostatic position (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that QDC is an inaccurate method for the calibration of RIP. The K values obtained with ISOCAL reveal that RIP should be calibrated for each position evaluated.
Plethysmography; Respiratory mechanics; Posture; Calibration
