ReviewCurrent opinion in pulmonary medicine2020
Alternative algorithms and devices in sleep apnoea diagnosis: what we know and what we expect.
Review in Current opinion in pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of smartphone applications and devices for obstructive sleep apnea.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyPooled it
- Sleep and Athletic Performance: A Multidimensional Review of Physiological and Molecular Mechanisms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Feasibility of Radar Vital Sign Monitoring Using Multiple Range Bin Selection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Modalities in Sleep Disordered Breathing: Current and Emerging Technology and Its Potential to Transform Diagnostics.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Review
- Sleep Quality and Perceived Stress among Health Science Students during Online Education-A Single Institution Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Home Sleep Testing of Sleep Apnea.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDiagnosis of sleep apnoea was performed in sleep laboratories with polysomnography. This requires a room with supervision and presence of technologists and trained sleep experts. Today, clinical guidelines in most countries recommend home sleep apnoea testing with simple systems using six signals only. If criteria for signal quality, recording conditions, and patient selection are considered, then this is a reliable test with high accuracy. RECENT
findingsRecently diagnostic tools for sleep apnoea diagnosis become even more simple: smartwatches and wearables with smart apps claim to diagnose sleep apnoea when these devices are tracking sleep and sleep quality as part of new consumer health checking. Alternative and new devices range from excellent diagnostic tools with high accuracy and full validation studies down to very low-quality tools which only result in random diagnostic reports. Due to the high prevalence of sleep apnoea, even a random diagnosis may match a real disorder sometimes. SUMMARY: Until now, there are no metrics established how to evaluate these alternative algorithms and simple devices. Proposals for evaluating smartwatches, smartphones, single-use sensors, and new algorithms are presented. New assessments may help to overcome current limitations in sleep apnoea severity metrics. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COPM/A28.
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.