4.2 Article

The Utility of Three Screening Questionnaires for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in a Sleep Clinic Setting

Journal

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 56, Issue 3, Pages 684-690

Publisher

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.3.684

Keywords

Obstructive sleep apnea; screening questionnaires; sleep disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of three screening questionnaires in identifying Korean patients at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in a sleep clinic setting in Korea. Materials and Methods: Data were collected from 592 adult patients with suspected OSA who visited a sleep center. All patients completed the Sleep Apnea of Sleep Disorder Questionnaire (SA-SDQ), the Berlin questionnaire, and the STOP-Bang questionnaire. Estimated OSA risk was compared to a diagnosis of OSA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each questionnaire. Results: The prevalence of OSA was 83.6% using an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) >= 5/h and 58.4% for an AHI >= 15/h. The STOP-Bang questionnaire had a high sensitivity (97% for AHI >= 5/h, 98% for AHI >= 15/h), but the specificity was low (19% and 11%, respectively). In contrast, the sensitivity of the SA-SDQ was not high enough (68% for AHI >= 5/h, 74% for AHI >= 15/h) to be useful in a clinical setting, whereas the specificity was relatively good (66% and 61%, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity values of the Berlin questionnaire fell between those of the STOP-Bang questionnaire and the SA-SDQ. Conclusion: The STOP-Bang questionnaire may be useful for screening OSA in a sleep clinic setting, but its specificity is lower than the acceptable level for this purpose. A new screening questionnaire with a high sensitivity and acceptable specificity is therefore needed in a sleep clinic setting.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available