Assessing the reliability of obstructive sleep apnea screening instruments in isolation or in combination

Q2 Medicine
Boris I. Medarov , Luke A. Pluto , Lauren Fina , Furqan Ilyas , Indrawattie Sukhu , Recai Yucel , Marc A. Judson
{"title":"Assessing the reliability of obstructive sleep apnea screening instruments in isolation or in combination","authors":"Boris I. Medarov ,&nbsp;Luke A. Pluto ,&nbsp;Lauren Fina ,&nbsp;Furqan Ilyas ,&nbsp;Indrawattie Sukhu ,&nbsp;Recai Yucel ,&nbsp;Marc A. Judson","doi":"10.1016/j.yrmex.2020.100019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objectives</h3><p>A) Compare the standard obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening instruments to each other and to the judgement of experienced sleep clinicians. B) Evaluate if a novel OSA screening instrument constructed from components of the standard OSA screening instruments would improve the accuracy of screening.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We screened 344 subjects using the most commonly used OSA screening instruments- Berlin sleep questionnaire, STOP, STOP-BANG, Mallampati upper airway score and Epworth sleepiness scale. A clinical impression score (CIS) reflected the clinician's likelihood of OSA being present. All subjects underwent nocturnal polysomnography. The sensitivity and specificity of all screening instruments and the CIS for any OSA and for moderate-to-severe OSA were calculated. We constructed a logistic regression model incorporating all the components of these OSA screening instruments in an effort to develop a more accurate OSA screening metric.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>STOP-BANG was the most sensitive instrument (sensitivity of 93% and 97% for any OSA and moderate-to-severe OSA respectively). Its ability to exclude OSA was on par with the CIS (sensitivity of 95% and 97% respectively). The logistic regression model incorporating all the individual items of the OSA screening instruments did not meaningfully improve accuracy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A comprehensive clinical evaluation and STOP-BANG both possess sufficiently high sensitivity to be useful screening tools. Combining the existing OSA screening instruments into a single instrument did not appreciably improve upon the accuracy of the STOP-BANG. Further refinements of the existing OSA screening instruments would require identifying new, easily recognizable risk factors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37129,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine: X","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100019"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.yrmex.2020.100019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590143520300063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objectives

A) Compare the standard obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening instruments to each other and to the judgement of experienced sleep clinicians. B) Evaluate if a novel OSA screening instrument constructed from components of the standard OSA screening instruments would improve the accuracy of screening.

Methods

We screened 344 subjects using the most commonly used OSA screening instruments- Berlin sleep questionnaire, STOP, STOP-BANG, Mallampati upper airway score and Epworth sleepiness scale. A clinical impression score (CIS) reflected the clinician's likelihood of OSA being present. All subjects underwent nocturnal polysomnography. The sensitivity and specificity of all screening instruments and the CIS for any OSA and for moderate-to-severe OSA were calculated. We constructed a logistic regression model incorporating all the components of these OSA screening instruments in an effort to develop a more accurate OSA screening metric.

Results

STOP-BANG was the most sensitive instrument (sensitivity of 93% and 97% for any OSA and moderate-to-severe OSA respectively). Its ability to exclude OSA was on par with the CIS (sensitivity of 95% and 97% respectively). The logistic regression model incorporating all the individual items of the OSA screening instruments did not meaningfully improve accuracy.

Conclusions

A comprehensive clinical evaluation and STOP-BANG both possess sufficiently high sensitivity to be useful screening tools. Combining the existing OSA screening instruments into a single instrument did not appreciably improve upon the accuracy of the STOP-BANG. Further refinements of the existing OSA screening instruments would require identifying new, easily recognizable risk factors.

评估单独或联合使用阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停筛查工具的可靠性
研究目的:a)比较标准的阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)筛查仪器之间的差异,并与经验丰富的睡眠临床医生的判断进行比较。B)评估由标准OSA筛查仪器的组件构建的新型OSA筛查仪器是否会提高筛查的准确性。方法采用最常用的OSA筛查工具- Berlin睡眠问卷、STOP、STOP- bang、Mallampati上呼吸道评分和Epworth嗜睡量表对344例受试者进行筛查。临床印象评分(CIS)反映了临床医生存在OSA的可能性。所有受试者均行夜间多导睡眠描记术。计算所有筛查工具和CIS对任何OSA和中重度OSA的敏感性和特异性。我们构建了一个包含这些OSA筛查工具的所有组成部分的逻辑回归模型,以开发更准确的OSA筛查指标。结果stop - bang是最敏感的仪器(对任何OSA和中重度OSA的敏感性分别为93%和97%)。其排除OSA的能力与CIS相当(敏感性分别为95%和97%)。纳入OSA筛查工具所有单项的logistic回归模型并没有显著提高准确性。结论临床综合评价和STOP-BANG均具有足够高的灵敏度,可作为有效的筛查工具。将现有的OSA筛查仪器合并为一个仪器并没有明显提高STOP-BANG的准确性。进一步完善现有的阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停筛查工具需要识别新的、容易识别的风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Respiratory Medicine: X
Respiratory Medicine: X Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信