Marco La Verde, Esposito Renata, Maria Maddalena Marrapodi, Luigi Della Corte, Mario Fordellone, Hande Uzunçıbuk, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Gabriele Cervino, Giuseppe Minervini
{"title":"妊娠期阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停筛查问卷的诊断准确性:一项荟萃分析和最新的系统评价。","authors":"Marco La Verde, Esposito Renata, Maria Maddalena Marrapodi, Luigi Della Corte, Mario Fordellone, Hande Uzunçıbuk, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Gabriele Cervino, Giuseppe Minervini","doi":"10.1111/jsr.70197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the diagnostic performance of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) screening tools in pregnant populations and the efficacy of common sleep questionnaires. A comprehensive search was conducted from the beginning to March 2024 using MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they adopted OSA screening questionnaires in pregnant women and compared results with overnight polysomnography. Keywords included terms related to pregnancy and OSA (e.g., Berlin questionnaire, ESS, PSQI, PSG, Watch-PAT). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for each study. Tests for equality of sensitivity and specificity were conducted to evaluate variability. Eight studies involving 10,043 pregnant women were included. Reported OSA prevalence ranging from 12% to 72.3%. The Berlin questionnaire demonstrated significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity (χ<sup>2</sup> = 23.54, df = 6, p = 0.0006) and specificity (χ<sup>2</sup> = 33.74, df = 6, p = 7.56e-06), with a strong positive correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate (max. correlation coefficient = 0.994; 95% CI 0.092-0.994). The ESS showed similar variability (sensitivity: χ<sup>2</sup> = 10.55, df = 4, p = 0.0321; specificity: χ<sup>2</sup> = 74.18, df = 4, p = 2.97e-15), also revealing a positive correlation between sensitivity and false positives. Traditional screening tools such as the Berlin questionnaire and ESS exhibit poor diagnostic accuracy for OSA during pregnancy. These findings highlight the need for pregnancy-specific screening instruments and further research into OSA risk factors unique to this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":17057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sleep Research","volume":" ","pages":"e70197"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of the Screening Questionnaires for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea in Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis and Updated Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Marco La Verde, Esposito Renata, Maria Maddalena Marrapodi, Luigi Della Corte, Mario Fordellone, Hande Uzunçıbuk, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Gabriele Cervino, Giuseppe Minervini\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jsr.70197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the diagnostic performance of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) screening tools in pregnant populations and the efficacy of common sleep questionnaires. A comprehensive search was conducted from the beginning to March 2024 using MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they adopted OSA screening questionnaires in pregnant women and compared results with overnight polysomnography. Keywords included terms related to pregnancy and OSA (e.g., Berlin questionnaire, ESS, PSQI, PSG, Watch-PAT). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for each study. Tests for equality of sensitivity and specificity were conducted to evaluate variability. Eight studies involving 10,043 pregnant women were included. Reported OSA prevalence ranging from 12% to 72.3%. The Berlin questionnaire demonstrated significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity (χ<sup>2</sup> = 23.54, df = 6, p = 0.0006) and specificity (χ<sup>2</sup> = 33.74, df = 6, p = 7.56e-06), with a strong positive correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate (max. correlation coefficient = 0.994; 95% CI 0.092-0.994). The ESS showed similar variability (sensitivity: χ<sup>2</sup> = 10.55, df = 4, p = 0.0321; specificity: χ<sup>2</sup> = 74.18, df = 4, p = 2.97e-15), also revealing a positive correlation between sensitivity and false positives. Traditional screening tools such as the Berlin questionnaire and ESS exhibit poor diagnostic accuracy for OSA during pregnancy. These findings highlight the need for pregnancy-specific screening instruments and further research into OSA risk factors unique to this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sleep Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sleep Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.70197\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sleep Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.70197","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)筛查工具在妊娠人群中的诊断性能以及常见睡眠问卷的有效性。根据PRISMA指南,从年初到2024年3月,使用MEDLINE、Scopus、Cochrane CENTRAL和谷歌Scholar进行了全面的检索。如果对孕妇采用OSA筛查问卷,并将结果与夜间多导睡眠图进行比较,则纳入研究。关键词包括与妊娠和OSA相关的术语(如柏林问卷、ESS、PSQI、PSG、Watch-PAT)。计算每项研究的敏感性、特异性、诊断优势比(DOR)和似然比(LR)。进行敏感性和特异性相等试验以评估变异性。其中包括8项研究,涉及10043名孕妇。报告的OSA患病率从12%到72.3%不等。柏林问卷的敏感性(χ2 = 23.54, df = 6, p = 0.0006)和特异性(χ2 = 33.74, df = 6, p = 7.56e-06)存在显著的异质性,敏感性与假阳性率(max。相关系数= 0.994;95% ci 0.092-0.994)。ESS具有相似的变异性(敏感性χ2 = 10.55, df = 4, p = 0.0321;特异性χ2 = 74.18, df = 4, p = 2.97e-15),敏感性与假阳性呈正相关。传统的筛查工具如柏林问卷和ESS对妊娠期OSA的诊断准确性较差。这些发现强调了对妊娠特异性筛查工具的需求,以及对这一人群独特的OSA危险因素的进一步研究。
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Screening Questionnaires for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea in Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis and Updated Systematic Review.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the diagnostic performance of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) screening tools in pregnant populations and the efficacy of common sleep questionnaires. A comprehensive search was conducted from the beginning to March 2024 using MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they adopted OSA screening questionnaires in pregnant women and compared results with overnight polysomnography. Keywords included terms related to pregnancy and OSA (e.g., Berlin questionnaire, ESS, PSQI, PSG, Watch-PAT). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for each study. Tests for equality of sensitivity and specificity were conducted to evaluate variability. Eight studies involving 10,043 pregnant women were included. Reported OSA prevalence ranging from 12% to 72.3%. The Berlin questionnaire demonstrated significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity (χ2 = 23.54, df = 6, p = 0.0006) and specificity (χ2 = 33.74, df = 6, p = 7.56e-06), with a strong positive correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate (max. correlation coefficient = 0.994; 95% CI 0.092-0.994). The ESS showed similar variability (sensitivity: χ2 = 10.55, df = 4, p = 0.0321; specificity: χ2 = 74.18, df = 4, p = 2.97e-15), also revealing a positive correlation between sensitivity and false positives. Traditional screening tools such as the Berlin questionnaire and ESS exhibit poor diagnostic accuracy for OSA during pregnancy. These findings highlight the need for pregnancy-specific screening instruments and further research into OSA risk factors unique to this population.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sleep Research is dedicated to basic and clinical sleep research. The Journal publishes original research papers and invited reviews in all areas of sleep research (including biological rhythms). The Journal aims to promote the exchange of ideas between basic and clinical sleep researchers coming from a wide range of backgrounds and disciplines. The Journal will achieve this by publishing papers which use multidisciplinary and novel approaches to answer important questions about sleep, as well as its disorders and the treatment thereof.