ArticleSleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil)
Sensitivity and specificity of four screening sleep-disordered breathing tests in patients with and without cardiovascular disease.
Article in Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil). 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Machine Learning Identification of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity through the Patient Clinical Features: A Retrospective Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cut-off points of neck and waist circumference as predictors of obstructive sleep apnea in the Colombian population: a comparison with polysomnography.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2023Article
- The value of nurse-led anthropometric and oropharyngeal measurements combined with STOP-Bang questionnaire in screening for obstructive sleep apnea in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a prospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Observational
- A Comparison of the Reliability of Five Sleep Questionnaires for the Detection of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPolysomnogram is the gold standard for the diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB); a sensitive and specific alternative strategy would be ideal, due to its low availability, and screening patients at high risk of OSA is very important. This study aimed to determine the operating characteristics of screening tests in patients with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD). MATERIAL AND
methodsEpworth sleepiness scale (ESS), Berlin, STOP-bang and Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) were applied in adults with and without cardiovascular disease in three Colombian cities, as well as anthropometric measurements and a polysomnogram. Operating characteristics were calculated for each test and the best cut-off values in patients with and without CVD were obtained.
results964 patients (median age: 58), 662 with and 302 without CVD were included. The prevalence for SDB (AHI =5) were 43.4 % (OSA), 16.2% (central apnea), and 12.4 % (other). In patients without CVD, the highest sensitivity for OSA and central apnea was for PSQI (80-85%). The highest specificity was for STOP-bang (68%) and Berlin (78.6%). In CVD the best sensitivity was for PSQI (81.9%) followed by Berlin (71.9%) and the best specificity for STOP-bang (82.1%). No isolated questionnaire showed good diagnostic performance (AUC=0.6) and the cut-off values had no variations except for ESS.
conclusionScreening tests showed low operating characteristics for the diagnosis to SDB, but better performance in patients with CVD. They are not recommended as the only diagnostic test, but they can be useful to guide the initial diagnostic process.
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.