运用主观问卷提高OSA筛查效率:结合STOP-Bang、ESS和Berlin。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2025.1581904
Riken Chen, Yuan Zhang, Weilong Ye, Zhaojun Chen, Weifeng Liao, Huizhao Liao, Tingting Sun, Huan Li, Junfen Cheng, Wang Liu, Weimin Yao, Yitian Yang
{"title":"运用主观问卷提高OSA筛查效率:结合STOP-Bang、ESS和Berlin。","authors":"Riken Chen, Yuan Zhang, Weilong Ye, Zhaojun Chen, Weifeng Liao, Huizhao Liao, Tingting Sun, Huan Li, Junfen Cheng, Wang Liu, Weimin Yao, Yitian Yang","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2025.1581904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the predictive value of the STOP-Bang questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and the Berlin questionnaire, while evaluating the combined application of these tools in a three-step screening strategy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 1, 2016, to October 31, 2020, at the Sleep Medicine Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, 2,208 suspected OSA patients completed the ESS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin questionnaires and underwent polysomnography (PSG). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each questionnaire, and the accuracy and predictive value of combining the STOP-Bang, ESS, and Berlin questionnaires for OSA screening were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the individual scales, the Berlin questionnaire had the highest area under the curve (AUC), demonstrating the best diagnostic performance and the highest PPV. The ESS had the smallest AUC and the highest specificity, but the lowest sensitivity and NPV. The STOP-Bang had the highest sensitivity and NPV but the lowest specificity and PPV. When the scales were combined, the AUCs of all combinations were less than 0.7, indicating that the diagnostic performance of the combined scales slightly decreased compared to the individual scales. However, among the combined scales, the AUC of the three-scale combination was higher than that of the two-scale combinations. After combining the questionnaires, specificity and PPV increased, but sensitivity and NPV decreased. Among the two-questionnaire combinations, the sensitivity and NPV of the ESS and STOP-Bang combination were higher than those of the ESS and Berlin questionnaire combination, while specificity and PPV were lower. The combination of all three questionnaires resulted in the highest specificity and PPV, but the lowest sensitivity and NPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As the number of scales increases, sensitivity and NPV decrease, while specificity and PPV increase. Therefore, we recommend a three-step strategy, combining a STOP-Bang score of 3, an ESS score of 9, and the Berlin questionnaire to improve the specificity and PPV in screening for OSA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1581904"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12263414/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving OSA screening efficiency with subjective questionnaires: integrating STOP-Bang, ESS, and Berlin.\",\"authors\":\"Riken Chen, Yuan Zhang, Weilong Ye, Zhaojun Chen, Weifeng Liao, Huizhao Liao, Tingting Sun, Huan Li, Junfen Cheng, Wang Liu, Weimin Yao, Yitian Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2025.1581904\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the predictive value of the STOP-Bang questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and the Berlin questionnaire, while evaluating the combined application of these tools in a three-step screening strategy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 1, 2016, to October 31, 2020, at the Sleep Medicine Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, 2,208 suspected OSA patients completed the ESS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin questionnaires and underwent polysomnography (PSG). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each questionnaire, and the accuracy and predictive value of combining the STOP-Bang, ESS, and Berlin questionnaires for OSA screening were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the individual scales, the Berlin questionnaire had the highest area under the curve (AUC), demonstrating the best diagnostic performance and the highest PPV. The ESS had the smallest AUC and the highest specificity, but the lowest sensitivity and NPV. The STOP-Bang had the highest sensitivity and NPV but the lowest specificity and PPV. When the scales were combined, the AUCs of all combinations were less than 0.7, indicating that the diagnostic performance of the combined scales slightly decreased compared to the individual scales. However, among the combined scales, the AUC of the three-scale combination was higher than that of the two-scale combinations. After combining the questionnaires, specificity and PPV increased, but sensitivity and NPV decreased. Among the two-questionnaire combinations, the sensitivity and NPV of the ESS and STOP-Bang combination were higher than those of the ESS and Berlin questionnaire combination, while specificity and PPV were lower. The combination of all three questionnaires resulted in the highest specificity and PPV, but the lowest sensitivity and NPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As the number of scales increases, sensitivity and NPV decrease, while specificity and PPV increase. Therefore, we recommend a three-step strategy, combining a STOP-Bang score of 3, an ESS score of 9, and the Berlin questionnaire to improve the specificity and PPV in screening for OSA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"1581904\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12263414/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1581904\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1581904","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较STOP-Bang问卷、Epworth嗜睡量表(ESS)和Berlin问卷的预测价值,同时评估这些工具在阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)三步筛查策略中的联合应用。方法:2016年9月1日至2020年10月31日,在广州医科大学第一附属医院睡眠医学中心对2208例疑似OSA患者进行ESS、STOP-Bang和Berlin问卷调查,并进行多导睡眠图(PSG)检查。计算各问卷的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)、受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,分析联合STOP-Bang、ESS、Berlin问卷筛查OSA的准确性和预测值。结果:在单项量表中,柏林问卷的曲线下面积(AUC)最高,具有最佳的诊断效果和最高的PPV。ESS的AUC最小,特异度最高,但灵敏度和NPV最低。STOP-Bang具有最高的敏感性和NPV,但最低的特异性和PPV。当组合量表时,所有组合的auc均小于0.7,表明组合量表的诊断效能较单个量表略有下降。但在组合量表中,三量表组合的AUC高于两量表组合的AUC。结合问卷调查后,特异性和PPV增加,敏感性和NPV下降。在两种问卷组合中,ESS和STOP-Bang组合的敏感性和NPV高于ESS和Berlin问卷组合,而特异性和PPV较低。三种问卷联合使用的特异性和PPV最高,但敏感性和NPV最低。结论:随着量表数量的增加,敏感性和NPV降低,特异性和PPV增加。因此,我们建议采用三步策略,将STOP-Bang评分为3分、ESS评分为9分和Berlin问卷相结合,以提高OSA筛查的特异性和PPV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving OSA screening efficiency with subjective questionnaires: integrating STOP-Bang, ESS, and Berlin.

Objective: To compare the predictive value of the STOP-Bang questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and the Berlin questionnaire, while evaluating the combined application of these tools in a three-step screening strategy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

Methods: From September 1, 2016, to October 31, 2020, at the Sleep Medicine Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, 2,208 suspected OSA patients completed the ESS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin questionnaires and underwent polysomnography (PSG). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each questionnaire, and the accuracy and predictive value of combining the STOP-Bang, ESS, and Berlin questionnaires for OSA screening were analyzed.

Results: Among the individual scales, the Berlin questionnaire had the highest area under the curve (AUC), demonstrating the best diagnostic performance and the highest PPV. The ESS had the smallest AUC and the highest specificity, but the lowest sensitivity and NPV. The STOP-Bang had the highest sensitivity and NPV but the lowest specificity and PPV. When the scales were combined, the AUCs of all combinations were less than 0.7, indicating that the diagnostic performance of the combined scales slightly decreased compared to the individual scales. However, among the combined scales, the AUC of the three-scale combination was higher than that of the two-scale combinations. After combining the questionnaires, specificity and PPV increased, but sensitivity and NPV decreased. Among the two-questionnaire combinations, the sensitivity and NPV of the ESS and STOP-Bang combination were higher than those of the ESS and Berlin questionnaire combination, while specificity and PPV were lower. The combination of all three questionnaires resulted in the highest specificity and PPV, but the lowest sensitivity and NPV.

Conclusion: As the number of scales increases, sensitivity and NPV decrease, while specificity and PPV increase. Therefore, we recommend a three-step strategy, combining a STOP-Bang score of 3, an ESS score of 9, and the Berlin questionnaire to improve the specificity and PPV in screening for OSA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信