ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2022
A validation study of an esophageal probe-based polygraph against polysomnography in obstructive sleep apnea.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experience with the use of a digital sleep diary in symptom management by individuals with insomnia -a pilot mixed method study.Sleep medicine: X · 2023Article
- Can polysomnography be replaced by ApneaGraph200 for OSA diagnosis? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
- Shared decision making: A novel approach to personalized treatment in obstructive sleep apnea.Sleep medicine: X · 2022Article
- Sensors, technologies, and classification algorithms for monitoring and diagnosis of sleep apnea.Digital healthReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesThe aim of this study was to validate the automatically scored results of an esophageal probe-based polygraph system (ApneaGraph® Spiro) against manually scored polysomnography (Nox A1, PSG) results. We compared the apnea-hypopnea index, oxygen saturation index, and respiratory disturbance index of the devices.
methodsConsenting patients, referred for obstructive sleep apnea workup, were tested simultaneously with the ApneaGraph® Spiro and Nox A1® polysomnograph. Each participant made one set of simultaneous registrations for one night. PSG results were scored independently. Apnea-hypopnea index, oxygen desaturation index, and respiratory disturbance index were compared using Pearson's correlation and scatter plots. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of all indices at 5, 15, and 30 were calculated.
resultsA total of 83 participants had successful registrations. The apnea-hypopnea index showed sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.95, and a positive likelihood ratio of 5.11 at an index cutoff of 15. At a cutoff of 30, the positive likelihood ratio rose to 31.43. The respiratory disturbance index showed high sensitivity (> 0.9) at all cutoffs, but specificity was below 0.5 at all cutoffs. Scatterplots revealed overestimation in mild OSA and underestimation in severe OSA for all three indices.
conclusionsThe ApneaGraph® Spiro performed acceptably when OSA was defined by an AHI of 15. The equipment overestimated mild OSA and underestimated severe OSA, compared to the PSG.
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.