ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2022
Usefulness of self-administered questionnaires in screening for direct referral for polysomnography without sleep physician review.
Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- NHANES Sleep Research as a Cautionary Tale: When Big Data Goes Wrong.Nature and science of sleep · 2025Article
- Approach the Patient With Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Obesity.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesTo evaluate self-administered screening questionnaires (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS], Berlin, OSA50, and STOP-Bang questionnaires) in patients considered for polysomnography for probable obstructive sleep apnea suitable for direct polysomnography without sleep specialist review and to evaluate the usefulness of combining questionnaires in this population.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of tertiary sleep center referrals (November 2017 to April 2020) where ≥ 3 screening questionnaires were completed and type 1 polysomnography was performed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios to detect an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 15 or ≥ 30 events/h were calculated for each questionnaire (with or without ESS ≥ 8) or any positive questionnaire with ESS ≥ 8.
resultsWe included 2,152 patients. The questionnaires were completed in the majority (ESS 96%, Berlin 77%, OSA50 84%, and STOP-Bang 90%) of referrals. Berlin was most sensitive (82.5% and 85% to detect AHI ≥ 15 and ≥ 30 events/h, respectively) but least specific (23% both thresholds). STOP-Bang was least sensitive (66% and 42%, respectively) but most specific (68% and 60%, respectively). Sensitivity declined for the Berlin, OSA50 and STOP-Bang questionnaires when combined with ESS ≥ 8. Combining any questionnaire with ESS ≥ 8 returned an intermediate sensitivity of 61% and 73% and a specificity of 49% and 47% for AHI ≥ 15 and ≥ 30 events/h, respectively. STOP-Bang alone was predictive of obstructive sleep apnea on multivariate analysis but was only associated with a clinically nonsignificant positive likelihood ratio. However, STOP-Bang is associated with unacceptable false-positive and -negative rates, which did not support its use.
conclusionsSelf-administered questionnaires are inadequate in patients under consideration for polysomnography and should not be used as clinical support for suitability of direct polysomnography without sleep specialist review. Combining questionnaires causes deteriorated performance. CITATION: Hukins C, Duce B. Usefulness of self-administered questionnaires in screening for direct referral for polysomnography without sleep physician review.
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.