Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29523562›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Agreement between electronic and paper Epworth Sleepiness Scale responses in obstructive sleep apnoea: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial undertaken in a specialised tertiary care clinic.

Lily Chen, Julia L Chapman, Brendon J Yee, Keith K H Wong, Ronald R Grunstein, Nathaniel S Marshall, Christopher B Miller

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lily ChenCIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Julia L ChapmanCIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Brendon J YeeCIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Keith K H WongCIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ronald R GrunsteinCIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nathaniel S MarshallSydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Christopher B MillerCIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2936-7717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOriginally developed as a paper questionnaire, the electronic Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is widely used in sleep clinics and sleep population research. Despite potential differences between computer-based and conventional questionnaire delivery, studies have not evaluated the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the ESS. Given the widespread use of the ESS, a bias between results would present considerable data concerns. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine agreement between electronic and paper ESS responses in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA).

designWe undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR: ACTRN12611000847910).

settingData were collected in a tertiary sleep research laboratory located in Sydney, Australia.

participantsData were analysed from 112 adult patients with OSA. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were given the English version of the ESS as part of a battery of sleep laboratory questionnaires. They completed electronic and subsequently paper ESS questionnaires on the same day.

resultsWe found no significant difference between electronic and paper ESS questionnaires (mean=0.1, SD=2.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5, P=0.57) or heteroscedasticity. There was no evidence of bias along the range of the measure. 95% limits of agreement at 4.3 and -4.1 were comparable with previous data.

conclusionsWe found no evidence of bias between electronic and paper ESS questionnaires in this sample of patients with OSA, as the two formats displayed sufficient agreement to be clinically comparable. Regardless of severity, patients reported the same level of daytime sleepiness with the same level of accuracy across both measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000847910; Pre-results.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDisorders of Excessive SomnolenceFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedObesityReproducibility of ResultsSleep Apnea, ObstructiveSurveys and QuestionnairesTertiary Care CentersYoung Adultcomputerepworthpaper-and-pencilquestionnairesleep apnoeasleepiness

Identifiers

PMID29523562
PMCPMC5855164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.