SynthesisScientific reports2026
Risk of obstructive sleep apnea among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a very common but underdiagnosed health disorder. OSA-derived cognitive disorders could increase the risk of work-related injuries among healthcare workers (HW), representing a major threat both to them and their patients. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relevance of OSA in the healthcare sector. Studies reporting the prevalence of either high risk of OSA (HRO) or diagnosed OSA, assessed respectively by structured questionnaires or validated diagnostic tools among healthcare workers, published between 2000 and 2026 in PubMed and Scopus were included. A meta-analysis of the included papers was performed using random-effects models to estimate the pooled prevalence. Variability was evaluated by the heterogeneity test and the I² statistic. Statistical significance was set at p < 5%. Of the 211 articles identified, 9 with 8473 participants were included in the meta-analysis. OSA risk was assessed by the Berlin (BQ) and STOP-BANG questionnaires (SBQ) in 6 and 3 studies, respectively. Prevalence estimates for HRO were highly heterogeneous (I-squared = 99.1%), ranging from 7 to 37%. The pooled estimate was 23% (95% CI 13-33%). Prevalence estimates were significantly affected by geographic area, being higher in Europe and the Middle East than in South-East Asia and the US (p < 0.01), but neither by response rate nor by the questionnaire used. The prevalence of OSA diagnosis was instrumentally obtained only in two studies and ranged from 9.3 to 21.9%. Data on HRO prevalence among HW are sparse, including a few studies with limited sample sizes and variable response rates. Larger studies, based on home sleep tests or new validated digital tools, such as smartwatches, smart pillows, and microphones, are warranted.
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.