ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
An effective model for screening moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea based on the STOP-BANG questionnaire.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to develop a more effective screening model for moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) based on the best tool among Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), NoSAS score and STOP-BANG questionnaire (SBQ). Methods: This study screened 2,031 consecutive subjects referred with suspected OSA from 2012 to 2016, including the test cohort from 2012 to 2014 and the validation cohort from 2014 to 2016. Anthropometric measurements, polysomnographic data, ESS, NoSAS scores and SBQ scores were recorded. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed and the final predictive models were verified in a validation cohort. Results: A total of 1,840 adults were finally included. The performance of ESS, NoSAS score and SBQ in screening OSA was compared. The diagnostic accuracy of SBQ was superior to ESS and NoSAS. A predictive model based on SBQ yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.931 (95% CI: 0.915-0.946), and the sensitivity and specificity were 84.47 (95% CI: 81.4-87.2) and 87.36 (95% CI: 83.9-90.3) respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 0.955 (95% CI: 0.938-0.969), with a sensitivity and specificity of 86.79 (95% CI: 83.2-89.9) and 90.88 (95% CI: 87.2-93.8) respectively. In addition, the model performed moderately in screening mild OSA with the AUC being 0.771 (95% CI: 0.721-0.815). Conclusions: The SBQ was effective in screening moderate-to-severe OSA. And a SBQ -based predictive model afforded excellent diagnostic efficacy, which could be applied in clinical practice.
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.