ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2025
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of automatic polygraphy analysis versus manual analysis in obstructive sleep apnea.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and limited healthcare resources have led to an increase in automated diagnostic testing in clinical practice. However, there is limited scientific support for this approach, which may pose risks for patients. Previous studies comparing automatic and manual OSA diagnostic methods often involve small sample sizes and lack standardized protocols.
aimTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the apnea-hypopnea index (REI) obtained through automatic versus manual polygraphy (PR) analysis and its performance across OSA severity levels.
methodThis prospective study included 3,144 subjects who underwent both automatic and manual PR analysis.
resultsA low diagnostic concordance (44.52%) was observed between automatic and manual PR analyses, indicating a poor diagnostic capacity of automated analysis. Sensitivity (S), specificity (E), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed for OSA diagnosis at different severity levels. While high S and NPV were noted for excluding OSA, E and PPV were low. For mild OSA, S and PPV were particularly low, as were E and PPV. The accuracy was similarly poor for moderate and severe OSA, though severe OSA showed higher E and NPV. Finally, for very severe OSA, S remained low, contrasting with high E, PPV, and NPV.
conclusionsAutomated polygraphy shows limited diagnostic accuracy, especially in mild and moderate OSA. Despite good sensitivity to rule out disease, its low specificity may lead to misclassification. Manual analysis remains essential for reliable diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40540115What 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.