ArticleCureus2024
Performance of the Alice PDx Device With the Somnolyzer Automated Scoring Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the Somnolyzer 24×7 automatic scoring system in children with suspected obstructive sleep apnea.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Automated scoring of respiratory events could allow a swifter obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) identification. We assessed the accuracy of the Alice PDx device with the Somnolyzer automated scoring algorithm, compared to the manually reviewed scoring by a trained sleep technician, for the diagnosis of OSA. Methods A prospective study was conducted between March 2021 and March 2022 in Centro Hospitalar do Baixo Vouga, a level 2 hospital in Aveiro, Portugal. Patients with high pre-test probability for OSA performed a type III home sleep apnea testing with the Alice PDx device. Data were scored automatedly by the Sleepware G3 with the Somnolyzer digital system and manually by a trained sleep technician. Correlation and dependent t-tests were used. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive values (NPVs), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of automated scoring were calculated. Data were analyzed using the Stata Statistical Software (Release 17, StataCorp., 2023, College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC). Results In 150 participants (mean age 57.8 ± 13.9 years), the mean apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 21.9 ± 21.8 events/hour by manual scoring and 25.4 ± 21.6 events/hour by automated scoring. The mean difference was 3.4 ± 4.4 events/hour, and a strong, positive, linear correlation was found between the two scores (r = 0.98). At the altered AHI (AHI ≥ 5 events/hour), mild, moderate, and severe OSA, the automated scoring sensitivity/specificity values were 91.2%/100.0%, 80.0%/68.6%, 91.6%/41.9%, and 98.1%/80.9%, respectively. The PPVs/NPVs for the same categories were 100.0%/69.4%, 89.3%/51.1%, 79.7%/66.7%, and 91.8%/95.0%, respectively. Finally, the AUROC was 0.85, 0.70, 0.73, and 0.93, respectively. Conclusion The automated scoring obtained from the Alice PDx portable device, using Sleepware G3 with the Somnolyzer digital system, seems accurate enough to diagnose OSA and validate the initiation of PAP therapy in the correct clinical setting. Nevertheless, it does not replace manual reviewing by a trained sleep technician in the case of mild and moderate OSA, to obtain a correct severity classification. With this valuable time-saving tool, we expect to hasten OSA diagnosis and treatment and thus tackle the underdiagnosis problem.
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.