ArticleScientific reports2025
The No-Apnea score for early obstructive sleep apnea detection in a sleep clinic: a study of diagnostic accuracy and comparative performance of three screening instruments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram Incorporating Platelet Distribution Width and the Triglyceride-Glucose Index for Predicting Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Nature and science of sleep · 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
This cross-sectional study investigated the No-Apnea tool's diagnostic ability to detect obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), across different severities (respiratory disturbance index [RDI] ≥ 5, ≥ 15, ≥ 30) compared to polysomnography (gold standard) in 2,087 consecutive patients attending a sleep clinic (age: 45.92 ± 13.46, male: 70.8%). We further compared the diagnostic performance of No-Apnea, NoSAS, and STOP-Bang tools. Across all RDI levels, No-Apnea showed superior sensitivity (96.9-99.0%, based on RDI thresholds), negative predictive value (NPV) (47.8-91.2%), negative likelihood ratio (0.10-0.22), and odds ratio (10.6-11.8). Across all RDI levels, NoSAS demonstrated the highest specificity (72.2-87.8%), positive predictive value (PPV) (67.5-97.4%), and positive likelihood ratio (2.21-3.87). No-Apnea achieved the highest accuracy and F1 scores at RDI ≥ 5 (90.37 and 94.8%) and ≥ 15 (74.75 and 84.8%). At RDI ≥ 5, NoSAS and STOP-Bang showed comparable areas under the ROC curve (AUC) (0.675 vs. 0.685, P > 0.05), exhibiting a significant advantage over No-Apnea (0.622, P = 0.004 and 0.002, respectively). At RDI ≥ 15 and ≥ 30, NoSAS had the highest (0.676 and 0.668), and No-Apnea had the lowest AUCs (0.566 and 0.543). STOP-Bang performance measures fell between No-Apnea and NoSAS across RDI levels. In our sleep clinic population, No-Apnea demonstrated high sensitivity, NPV, accuracy, and F1 score for detecting OSA, but low specificity, PPV, and AUC.
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.