ReviewInternational journal of preventive medicine2024
Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Pregnant Women: An Extended and Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of preventive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep Disorders in Pregnant Women and Their Impact on Maternal and Fetal Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Gestational Obstructive Sleep Apnea: From Pathophysiological Mechanisms to Maternal-Fetal Outcomes.Cureus · 2026Review
- Sex Differences in Predictors of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Risk Among Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in Colombian University Students.Journal of clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) increases in women during pregnancy and negatively affects maternal and fetal outcomes. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the validity of the Berlin, STOP-Bang, and Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) questionnaires in detecting OSA in pregnant women. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched systematically up to March 2022. After eligible studies inclusion, two independent reviewers extracted demographic and clinical data. Bivariate random effects models were used to estimate the pooled accuracy measures including sensitivity and specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPVs), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curve. We included 8 studies including 710 pregnant women with suspected OSA. The performance values of Berlin, STOP-Bang, and ESS questionnaires were as follows: the pooled sensitivity were 61% (95% confidence interval (CI): 40%-80%), 59% (95% CI: 49%-69%), and 29%, (95% CI: 10%-60%); pooled specificity were 61% (95% CI: 42%-78%), 80% (95% CI: 55%-93%), and 80% (95% CI: 50%-94%); pooled PPVs were 60% (95% CI: 0.49-0.72), 73% (95% CI: 61%-85%), and 59% (95% CI: 31%-87%); pooled NPVs were 60% (95% CI: 0.49-0.71), 65% (95% CI: 54%-76%), and 53% (95% CI: 41%-64%); and pooled DORs were 3 (95% CI: 1-5), 6 (95% CI: 2-19), and 2 (95% CI: 1-3), respectively. It seems that the Berlin, STOP-Bang, and ESS questionnaires had poor to moderate sensitivity and specificity in pregnancy, with the ESS showing the worst characteristics. Further studies are required to evaluate the performance of alternative screening methods for OSA in pregnancy.
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.