ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2014
Home-based diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea by polysomnography type 2: accuracy, reliability, and feasibility.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Redefining telemedicine in obstructive sleep apnea management through artificial intelligence.Frontiers in sleep · 2025Article
- The Correlation of Computerized Scoring in Home Sleep Apnea Tests with Technician Visual Scoring for Assessing the Severity of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Article
- Isolated REM sleep behaviour disorder: current diagnostic procedures and emerging new technologies.Journal of neurology · 2022Review
- Assessment of Nocturnal Autonomic Cardiac Imbalance in Positional Obstructive Sleep Apnea. A Multiscale Nonlinear Approach.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite being used in large cohort studies, role of polysomnography (PSG) type 2 is still controversy. This study was aimed to determine its accuracy, reliability, and feasibility in diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) compared to gold standard.
methodsAdult patients with stable medical conditions who complained of snoring or excessive sleepiness and lived around Bangkok were recruited from a sleep clinic. All were asked to fill questionnaires and have PSG done in laboratory (in-Lab PSG) and at home (Home PSG) on separate nights within 2-4 weeks interval.
resultsEighty-six patients, 48 males and 38 females, were included. Mean of total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and stage R were significantly greater in Home PSG than in-Lab PSG (p<0.05). Apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was slightly higher in Home PSG (25.7 versus 23.5, p=0.04), but with excellent reliability, intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.96 (95% CI; 0.93-0.97), and good agreements (κ=0.59-0.70) between both tests. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Home PSG at cut-off point of AHI≥5, were 0.97, 0.56, and 0.85, respectively, and at AHI≥15 were 0.95, 0.76, and 0.85, respectively. Sixty-four patients (74.4%) preferred home-PSG but four patients (4.7%) needed repeated tests due to significant data loss.
conclusionsThis is the first report in Asia demonstrating that home-based diagnosis of OSA by PSG type 2 was feasible performing with good reliability, high accuracy, and a low failure rate. However, further studies focusing on its cost-effectiveness are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24532145What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.