4.5 Article

Is the OSA-18 predictive of obstructive sleep apnea: Comparison to polysomnography

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 125, Issue 6, Pages 1491-1495

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25098

Keywords

OSA-18; polysomnography; obstructive sleep apnea; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/HypothesisTo examine the ability of the OSA-18 to predict Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) in a racially diverse population when compared to overnight polysomnography (PSG). Study DesignCross-sectional retrospective. MethodsChildren 2 to 12 years of age diagnosed with OSA who were treated at a tertiary care institution between 2008 and 2013 and had complete PSG and OSA-18 data were included. We performed logistic regression with OSA as the dependent variable and the OSA-18 total symptom score (TSS), age, gender, race, asthma, and body mass index (BMI) as independent variables. ResultsSeventy-nine children (32 females) were included (mean age 5.22.4 years). The positive predictive value (PPV) was greater than 90 for an obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (oAHI)1. The PPV and specificity were higher for white than for nonwhite children; however, sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of OSA-18 TSS were low for mild, moderate, and severe OSA regardless of race. Age, race, and BMI were not significantly associated with oAHI. ConclusionsThis study, conducted in a racially diverse cohort, examined the ability of the OSA-18 to predict OSA when compared to PSGthe gold standardand found that sensitivity and NPV were extremely low for both white and nonwhite children. This suggests that the OSA-18 is not sufficiently sensitive to detect OSA nor sufficiently specific to determine the absence of OSA. The OSA-18 should be used as a quality-of-life indicator and is not a reliable substitute for PSG. Level of Evidence4. Laryngoscope, 125:1491-1495, 2015

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available