4.4 Article

Validation of a questionnaire instrument for prediction of obstructive sleep apnea in Hong Kong Chinese children

Journal

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 12, Pages 1153-1160

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.20505

Keywords

children; obstructive sleep apnea syndrome; screening; questionnaire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To develop and validate a questionnaire scale that can be used as a screening tool to investigate for the presence of childhood obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (CSAS) in Hong Kong Chinese children. Subjects suspected to have OSAS and controls were recruited. Parents completed a Hong Kong children sleep questionnaire (HK-CSQ) and all recruited subjects underwent at least one overnight polysomnographic study (PSG). An obstructive apnea index (OAI) >= 1/h was diagnostic of OSAS. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve was constructed to determine optimal sensitivity and specificity Reliability and validity of the questionnaire scale were also assessed. Two hundred twenty-nine children (149 boys and 80 girls) with a mean age of 10.0 years (SD = 2.1) were recruited. Their mean body mass index (BMI) and OAI were 19.8 (SD = 5.1) and 2.6 (SD = 7.6), respectively Fifty-four boys and 12 girls were found to have OSAS. Three questions were found to be highly significant in predicting for the presence of OSAS-snoring, nocturnal mouth breathing, and sweating. A composite score of 7 from the three questions (range 0-12) was found to discriminate the OSAS cases best [ROC curve, AUC = 0.8 (95% Cl = 0.8-0.9)]. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) were 75.4, 80.5, 61.3, and 88.9%, respectively Test-retest reliability was undertaken in 51 subjects and the measurement of agreement (Kappa value) was 0.6. This HK-CSQ is a useful, valid, and reliable screening instrument for the presence of OSAS in children.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available