Previous studies have proposed only one prediction equation for respiratory muscle strength without taking into consideration differences between ages in pediatric population. In addition, those researches were single-center studies. The objective of this study was to establish reference equations for maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) and maximal expiratory pressure (PEmax) in children and teenagers. In a multicenter study, 450 healthy volunteers were evaluated (aged 6–18yrs). There were included volunteers with normal lung function. We excluded volunteers who could not perform the tests; participated in physical activity more than twice a week; were born prematurely; smokers; chronic respiratory, cardiologic, and/or neurologic diseases; had acute respiratory disease during the prior three weeks. The volunteers were divided into two groups: Group 6–11 (6–11yrs) and Group 12–18 (12–18yrs). PImax and PEmax were measured according to statement. The mean PImax value was 85.6 (95%IC 83.6–87.6 cmH2O), and PEmax 84.6 (95%IC 85.5–86.2 cmH2O). The prediction equations for PImax and PEmax for Group 6–11 were 37.458–0.559 + (age * 3.253) + (BMI * 0.843) + (age * gender * 0.985); and 38.556 + 15.892 + (age * 3.023) + (BMI * 0.579) + (age * gender * 0.881), respectively (R2 = 0.34 and 0.31, P<0.001). The equations for Group 12–18 were 92.472 + (gender * 9.894) + 7.103, (R2 = 0.27, P = 0.006) for PImax; and 68.113 + (gender * 17.022) + 6.46 + (BMI * 0.927), (R2 = 0.34, P<0.0001) for PEmax. This multicenter study determined the respiratory muscle strength prediction equations for children and teenagers.

DESCRITORES Notificações de doenças Doenças transmissíveis Notificação KEYWORDS Communicable disease Diseases notification Notice Backgound and Objectives:The Compulsory Notification of diseases are those with potential to cause outbreaks and epidemics. The notification of the occurrence of a disease is tool for planning prevention and control of epidemics. The objective of this study was to contextualize the functioning of the existing service in Brazil and the importance of health professionals and community action in the notification of diseases in Brazil. Methods: an integrative review where reference data were inserted published in Portuguese, English and Spanish on the following bases was performed: LILACS, PubMed, SciELO, official websites of universities, foundations, departments and ministries of Brazil. Searches located 2.781 articles, of which were included in the study 16 and 11 official documents. Results: Among the reviewed data, subsidies were found that attempt to explain the operation of the Brazilian notification service and the actions of health and community professionals in notifiable diseases.Conclusion: fragility has been observed in the knowledge of professionals and the general public about the notification of Compulsory Notification of Diseases, thus preventing a better functioning of the current notification system in Brazil. RESUMO ABSTRACT ARTIGO DE REVISÃOO registro das doenças de notificação compulsória: a participação dos profissionais da saúde e da comunidadeThe registry of diseases of compulsory notification: the participation of health professionals and the community

Objective: To compare children/adolescents with mild or moderate asthma and healthy subjects in terms of respiratory muscle strength, correlating it with spirometric variables in the former group. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving individuals 6-16 years of age and clinically diagnosed with mild/moderate asthma, together with a group of healthy, age-and gender-matched subjects. We determined spirometric values, as well as MIP and MEP, and we selected three reproducible measurements (variation < 10%). Results: We evaluated 75 patients with asthma and 90 controls. The mean age was 10.0 ± 2.6 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the controls and the asthma group regarding MIP (−89.7 ± 26.7 cmH 2 O vs. −92.2 ± 26.3 cmH 2 O; p = 0.541) or MEP (79.2 ± 22.9 cmH 2 O vs. 86.4 ± 24.0 cmH 2 O; p = 0.256). The groups were subdivided by age (children and adolescents: 6-12 and 13-16 years of age, respectively). Within the asthma group, there was a significant difference between the child and adolescent subgroups in terms of MEP (74.1 ± 24.1 cmH 2 O vs. 92.1 ± 21.9 cmH 2 O; p < 0.001) but not MIP (p = 0.285). Within the control group, there were significant differences between the child and adolescent subgroups in terms of MIP (−79.1 ± 17.7 cmH 2 O vs. −100.9 ± 28.1 cmH 2 O; p < 0.001) and MEP (73.9 ± 18.7 cmH 2 O vs. 90.9 ± 28.1cmH 2 O; p < 0.001). In the asthma group, spirometric variables did not correlate with MIP or MEP. Conclusions: In our sample, asthma was found to have no significant effect on respiratory muscle strength.Keywords: Asthma; Respiratory muscles; Respiratory function tests. ResumoObjetivo: Comparar a força dos músculos respiratórios de crianças e adolescentes com asma leve/moderada com a de indivíduos saudáveis e correlacionar variáveis da espirometria com a força desses músculos nos indivíduos com asma. Métodos: Estudo transversal com indivíduos (6-16 anos de idade) com diagnóstico clínico de asma leve/moderada e voluntários saudáveis pareados por idade e gênero. Foram determinados valores espirométricos, PImáx e PEmáx, sendo selecionadas três medidas reprodutíveis (variação < 10%). Resultados: Foram avaliados 75 pacientes com asma e 90 controles. A média de idade foi de 10,0 ± 2,6 anos. Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre o grupos controle e asma em relação a PImáx (−89,7 ± 26,7 cmH 2 O vs. −92,2 ± 26,3 cmH 2 O; p = 0,541) e PEmáx (79,2 ± 22,9 cmH 2 O vs. 86,4 ± 24,0 cmH 2 O; p = 0,256). Os dois grupos foram subdivididos em crianças (6-12 anos) e adolescentes (13-16 anos). Nos subgrupos de crianças e adolescentes no grupo asma, houve diferença da PEmáx (74,1 ± 24,1 cmH 2 O vs. 92,1 ± 21,9 cmH 2 O; p < 0,001), mas não da PImáx (p = 0,285). Nos subgrupos de crianças e adolescentes no grupo controle, houve diferenças de PImáx (−79,1 ± 17,7 cmH 2 O vs. −100,9 ± 28,1 cmH 2 O; p < 0,001) e PEmáx (73,9 ± 18,7 cmH 2 O vs. 90,9 ± 28,1 cmH 2 O; p < 0,001). Não houve correlação das variáveis de espirometria com PImáx e PEmáx nos pacientes...

No abstract