ArticlePloS one2018
Screening for obstructive sleep apnea among hospital outpatients.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- FDA-cleared home sleep apnea testing devices.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Screening for obstructive sleep apnoea in post-treatment cancer patients.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Gender differences of clinical and polysomnographic findings with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is common in adults. People with OSAS have a higher risk of experiencing traffic accidents and occupational injuries (OIs). We aimed to clarify the diagnostic performance of a three-channel screening device (ApneaLinkTM) compared with the gold standard of full-night attended polysomnography (PSG) among hospital outpatients not referred for sleep-related symptoms. Furthermore, we aimed to determine whether manual revision of the ApneaLinkTM autoscore enhanced diagnostic performance.
methodsWe investigated 68 patients with OI and 44 without OI recruited from the University Hospital Basel emergency room, using a cross-sectional study design. Participating patients spent one night at home with ApneaLinkTM and within 2 weeks slept for one night at the sleep laboratory. We reanalyzed all ApneaLinkTM data after manual revision.
resultsWe identified significant correlations between the ApneaLinkTM apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) autoscore and the AHI derived by PSG (r = 0.525; p <0.001) and between the ApneaLinkTM oxygen desaturation index (ODI) autoscore and that derived by PSG (r = 0.722; p <0.001). The ApneaLinkTM autoscore showed a sensitivity and specificity of 82% when comparing AHI ≥5 with the cutoff for AHI and/or ODI ≥15 from PSG. In Bland Altman plots the mean difference between ApneaLinkTM AHI autoscore and PSG was 2.75 with SD ± 8.80 (β = 0.034), and between ApneaLinkTM AHI revised score and PSG -1.50 with SD ± 9.28 (β = 0.060).
conclusionsThe ApneaLinkTM autoscore demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity compared with the gold standard (full-night attended PSG). However, Bland Altman plots revealed substantial fluctuations between PSG and ApneaLinkTM AHI autoscore respectively manually revised score. This spread for the AHI from a clinical perspective is large, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, our findings suggest that there is no clinical benefit in manually revising the ApneaLinkTM autoscore.
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.