ArticleCanadian respiratory journal
Use of electronic data and existing screening tools to identify clinically significant obstructive sleep apnea.
Article in Canadian respiratory journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between alternative care provider-led and physician-led care for severe sleep disordered breathing: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Trial
- Impact of wait times for treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.ERJ open research · 2022Article
- THE PREVALENCE OF INSOMNIA AND SLEEP APNEA IN DISCHARGE ABSTRACT DATA: A CALL TO IMPROVE DATA QUALITY.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2021Article
- Identifying Cases of Sleep Disorders through International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Codes in Administrative Data.International journal of population data science · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the ability of electronic health data and existing screening tools to identify clinically significant obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), as defined by symptomatic or severe OSA.
methodsThe present retrospective cohort study of 1041 patients referred for sleep diagnostic testing was undertaken at a tertiary sleep centre in Calgary, Alberta. A diagnosis of clinically significant OSA or an alternative sleep diagnosis was assigned to each patient through blinded independent chart review by two sleep physicians. Predictive variables were identified from online questionnaire data, and diagnostic algorithms were developed. The performance of electronically derived algorithms for identifying patients with clinically significant OSA was determined. Diagnostic performance of these algorithms was compared with versions of the STOP-Bang questionnaire and adjusted neck circumference score (ANC) derived from electronic data.
resultsElectronic questionnaire data were highly sensitive (>95%) at identifying clinically significant OSA, but not specific. Sleep diagnostic testing-determined respiratory disturbance index was very specific (specificity ≥95%) for clinically relevant disease, but not sensitive (<35%). Derived algorithms had similar accuracy to the STOP-Bang or ANC, but required fewer questions and calculations.
conclusionsThese data suggest that a two-step process using a small number of clinical variables (maximizing sensitivity) and objective diagnostic testing (maximizing specificity) is required to identify clinically significant OSA. When used in an online setting, simple algorithms can identify clinically relevant OSA with similar performance to existing decision rules such as the STOP-Bang or ANC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.