Trial reportJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2021
Interrater reliability between in-person and telemedicine evaluations in obstructive sleep apnea.
Trial report in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Causal effects of modifiable risk factors on obstructive sleep apnea: A Mendelian randomization study and validation study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of mailed versus in-person PAP initiation in the Veterans Affairs' TeleSleep program.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Article
- Inter-Rater and Intra-Rater Reliability of Return-to-Work Screening Tests for UK Firefighters Following Injury.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Identifying Sleep Disorders From Search Engine Activity: Combining User-Generated Data With a Clinically Validated Questionnaire.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Exploring telemedicine evaluation reliability: ahead of its time and long overdue.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesWe examined how telemedicine evaluation compares to face-to-face evaluation in identifying risk for sleep-disordered breathing.
methodsThis was a randomized interrater reliability study of 90 participants referred to a university sleep center. Participants were evaluated by a clinician investigator seeing the patient in-person, then randomized to a second clinician investigator who performed a patient evaluation online via audio-video conferencing. The primary comparator was pretest probability for obstructive sleep apnea.
resultsThe primary outcome comparing pretest probability for obstructive sleep apnea showed a weighted kappa value of 0.414 (standard error 0.090, P = .002), suggesting moderate agreement between the 2 raters. Kappa values of our secondary outcomes varied widely, but the kappa values were lower for physical exam findings compared to historical elements.
conclusionsEvaluation for pretest probability for obstructive sleep apnea via telemedicine has a moderate interrater correlation with in-person assessment. A low degree of interrater reliability for physical exam elements suggests telemedicine assessment for obstructive sleep apnea could be hampered by a suboptimal physical exam. Employing standardized scales for obstructive sleep apnea when performing telemedicine evaluations may help with risk-stratification and ultimately lead to more tailored clinical management.
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.