首页> 外文期刊>Sleep medicine reviews >Diagnostic accuracy of the Berlin questionnaire, STOP-BANG, STOP, and Epworth sleepiness scale in detecting obstructive sleep apnea: A bivariate meta-analysis
【24h】

Diagnostic accuracy of the Berlin questionnaire, STOP-BANG, STOP, and Epworth sleepiness scale in detecting obstructive sleep apnea: A bivariate meta-analysis

机译:柏林问卷的诊断准确性,停止爆炸,停止和欧洲呼吸睡眠呼吸暂停呼吸暂停中的嗜好准确性:一分型荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Summary Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent sleep disorder; however, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Although screening tools such as the Berlin questionnaire (BQ), STOP-BANG questionnaire (SBQ), STOP questionnaire (STOP), and Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) are widely used for OSA, the findings regarding their diagnostic accuracy are controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated and compared the summary sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) among the BQ, SBQ, STOP, and ESS according to the severity of OSA. Electronic databases, namely the Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest dissertations and theses A&I databases, and China knowledge resource integrated database, were searched from their inception to July 15, 2016. We included studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of the BQ, SBQ, STOP, and ESS against the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI). The revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies was used to evaluate the methodological quality of studies. A random-effects bivariate model was used to estimate the summary sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of the tools. We identified 108 studies including a total of 47?989 participants. The summary estimates were calculated for the BQ, SBQ, STOP, and ESS in detecting mild (AHI/RDI?≥?5 events/h), moderate (AHI/RDI?≥?15 events/h), and severe OSA (AHI/RDI?≥?30 events/h). The performance levels of the BQ, SBQ, STOP, and ESS in detecting OSA of various severity levels are outlined as follows: for mild OSA, the pooled sensitivity levels were 76%, 88%, 87%, and 54%; pooled specificity levels were 59%, 42%, 42%, and 65%; and pooled DORs were 4.30, 5.13, 4.85, and 2.18, respectively. For moderate OSA, the pooled sensitivity levels were 77%, 90%, 89%, and 47%; pooled specificity levels were 44%, 36%, 32%, and 621%; and pooled DORs were 2.68, 5.05, 3.71, and 1.45, respectively. For severe OSA, the pooled sensitivity levels were 84%, 93%, 90%, and 58%; pooled specificity levels were 38%, 35%, 28%, and 60%; and pooled DORs were 3.10, 6.51, 3.37, and 2.10, respectively. Therefore, for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, the pooled sensitivity and DOR of the SBQ were significantly higher than those of other screening tools ( P ? P ? P ?
机译:发明内容阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)是一种高度普遍的睡眠障碍;但是,它仍然是令人难以置疑和下降的。虽然筛选工具如柏林调查问卷(BQ),停止爆炸问卷(SBQ),停止问卷(停止)和欧盟嗜睡量表(ESS)被广泛用于OSA,但有关其诊断准确性的调查结果是有争议的。因此,该荟萃分析根据OSA的严重程度对BQ,SBQ,STOP和ES的摘要敏感性,特异性和诊断差率(DOR)进行了研究。电子数据库,即Embase,PubMed,Psycinfo,Proquest论文和A&I数据库以及中国知识资源集成数据库,从他们开始于2016年7月15日搜索。我们包括研究BQ,SBQ的敏感性和特异性的研究停止,并针对呼吸暂停症索引(AHI)或呼吸扰动指数(RDI)。经修订的诊断准确性研究质量评估用于评估研究的方法论质量。随机效应的双变量模型用于估计工具的摘要敏感性,特异性和DOR。我们确定了108项研究,包括共有47个?989名参与者。摘要估计是针对BQ,SBQ,STOP和检测温和(AHI / RDI?≥≤5事件/ h)中的ESS,适度(AHI / RDI?≥15个事件/ h)和严重的OSA(AHI / RDI?≥?30个事件/ h)。 BQ,SBQ,STOP和ESS的性能水平概述了各种严重程度的OSA,如下:对于轻度OSA,汇集的敏感水平为76%,88%,87%和54%;合并的特异性水平为59%,42%,42%和65%;汇集的DOR分别为4.30,5.13,4.85和2.18。适用于OSA,汇集敏感性水平为77%,90%,89%和47%;合并的特异性水平为44%,36%,32%和621%;汇总的DOR分别为2.68,5.05,3.71和1.45。对于严重的OSA,合并的敏感性水平为84%,93%,90%和58%;合并的特异性水平为38%,35%,28%和60%;汇集的DOR分别为3.10,6.51,3.37和2.10。因此,对于轻度,中等和严重的OSA,SBQ的汇集灵敏度和DOR显着高于其他筛选工具(P?P?P?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号