ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Validation of GOAL questionnaire as screening tool for clinical obstructive sleep apnea: A large sample study in China.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.
- Validation Performance of Screening Tools for Predicting Obstructive Sleep Apnea Among Chinese Patients Undergoing Metabolic Bariatric Surgery: Insights from a Multicenter Database.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Screening for obstructive sleep apnea in an Afro-Caribbean Population: Diagnostic performance of common questionnaires compared with respiratory polygraphy - The MASOS Study A prospective, cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward Obstructive Sleep Apnea in China: A Structural Equation Modeling Study.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Article
- Causal Association Between Gut Microbiota and Sleep Apnoea Identified by Bayesian Weighted Mendelian Randomisation.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a serious disease with a high prevalence in the general population. The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of the GOAL questionnaire in the clinical screening of OSA and compare it with other existing screening tools. Materials and methods: Outpatients and inpatients who underwent polysomnography (PSG) examination at the Sleep Medicine Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from January 2013 to November 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The basic data such as demographic, medical history, etc., and PSG data of the patients were collected, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the curve (AUC) of GOAL and five other screening scales (the NoSAS score, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Berlin questionnaire, STOP, and STOP-Bang questionnaire) were calculated. Results: Data from 2,171 participants (1,644 male; 78%) were analyzed there were 1,507 OSA patients [Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) ≥ 5 events/h] among them, accounting for about 69.415%. No matter which cut-off point (AHI ≥ 5, 15 and 30 events/h), the AUC score reveals that GOAL questionnaire had comparable screening ability to the NoSAS and STOP-BANG, and performed better than the ESS, and the AUC scores of the STOP questionnaire and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) were both lower than 0.7. When the cut-off point of the AHI was 5 events/h, the AUC of GOAL was the highest at 0.799 (0.781-0.816), and its sensitivity was the highest at 89.1%. The sensitivity levels of the NoSAS score and STOP-Bang questionnaire were 67.4 and 78.8% respectively, while ESS and the Berlin questionnaire have higher specificity (70.2 and 72.3% respectively) but lower sensitivity (49.3 and 60.0% respectively). Conclusion: GOAL is a free, efficient and easy to manage tool with a screening ability comparable to NoSAS and STOP-Bang, and better than that of ESS.
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.