4.5 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of REM sleep behaviour disorder screening questionnaire: a meta-analysis

Journal

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 1039-1046

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-017-2886-9

Keywords

REM sleep behaviour disorder; REM sleep behaviour disorder screening questionnaire; Diagnostic accuracy; Parkinson's disease

Funding

  1. Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, China [bj-2015-027, 211-2016009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A screening tool can greatly facilitate the identification of individuals with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD). Currently, the REM sleep behaviour disorder screening questionnaire (RBDSQ) is widely used, but its diagnostic accuracy has varied across previous studies. The aim of the present study was to systematically assess the diagnostic performance of the RBDSQ. We comprehensively searched for studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of the RBDSQ. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of the RBDSQ. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the study design and the different populations included in the studies. Ten studies were included. Using a cutoff value of 5, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.95), 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.85), 4.00 (95% CI 2.60-6.10), 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.19), and 34 (95% CI 16-71), respectively. A subgroup analysis revealed that the RBDSQ had excellent diagnostic accuracy for RBD screening in the general population. However, its performance in specific patient populations, especially patients with Parkinson's disease, was less satisfactory. In conclusion, the RBDSQ is an effective diagnostic screening tool for RBD in the general population, but its performance in subjects with specific neurological disorders requires more comprehensive assessments.

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