Scholarlink

<p>This cross-sectional study investigated the No-Apnea tool’s diagnostic ability to detect obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), across different severities (respiratory disturbance index [RDI] ≥ 5, ≥ 15, ≥ 30) compared to polysomnography (gold standard) in 2,087 consecutive patients attending a sleep clinic (age: 45.92 ± 13.46, male: 70.8%). We further compared the diagnostic performance of No-Apnea, NoSAS, and STOP-Bang tools. Across all RDI levels, No-Apnea showed superior sensitivity (96.9–99.0%, based on RDI thresholds), negative predictive value (NPV) (47.8–91.2%), negative likelihood ratio (0.10–0.22), and odds ratio (10.6–11.8). Across all RDI levels, NoSAS demonstrated the highest specificity (72.2–87.8%), positive predictive value (PPV) (67.5–97.4%), and positive likelihood ratio (2.21–3.87). No-Apnea achieved the highest accuracy and F1 scores at RDI ≥ 5 (90.37 and 94.8%) and ≥ 15 (74.75 and 84.8%). At RDI ≥ 5, NoSAS and STOP-Bang showed comparable areas under the ROC curve (AUC) (0.675 vs. 0.685, <i>P</i> &gt; 0.05), exhibiting a significant advantage over No-Apnea (0.622, <i>P</i> = 0.004 and 0.002, respectively). At RDI ≥ 15 and ≥ 30, NoSAS had the highest (0.676 and 0.668), and No-Apnea had the lowest AUCs (0.566 and 0.543). STOP-Bang performance measures fell between No-Apnea and NoSAS across RDI levels. In our sleep clinic population, No-Apnea demonstrated high sensitivity, NPV, accuracy, and F1 score for detecting OSA, but low specificity, PPV, and AUC.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The No-Apnea score for early obstructive sleep apnea detection in a sleep clinic: a study of diagnostic accuracy and comparative performance of three screening instruments

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月24日

查看全文
  • Melika Jameie,
  • Mona Bayat,
  • Samaneh Akbarpour,
  • Mobina Amanollahi,
  • Hamed Amirifard,
  • Khosro Sadeghniiat Haghighi,
  • Maryam Edalatifard,
  • Reihaneh Heidari,
  • Besharat Rahimi,
  • Arezu Najafi

摘要

This cross-sectional study investigated the No-Apnea tool’s diagnostic ability to detect obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), across different severities (respiratory disturbance index [RDI] ≥ 5, ≥ 15, ≥ 30) compared to polysomnography (gold standard) in 2,087 consecutive patients attending a sleep clinic (age: 45.92 ± 13.46, male: 70.8%). We further compared the diagnostic performance of No-Apnea, NoSAS, and STOP-Bang tools. Across all RDI levels, No-Apnea showed superior sensitivity (96.9–99.0%, based on RDI thresholds), negative predictive value (NPV) (47.8–91.2%), negative likelihood ratio (0.10–0.22), and odds ratio (10.6–11.8). Across all RDI levels, NoSAS demonstrated the highest specificity (72.2–87.8%), positive predictive value (PPV) (67.5–97.4%), and positive likelihood ratio (2.21–3.87). No-Apnea achieved the highest accuracy and F1 scores at RDI ≥ 5 (90.37 and 94.8%) and ≥ 15 (74.75 and 84.8%). At RDI ≥ 5, NoSAS and STOP-Bang showed comparable areas under the ROC curve (AUC) (0.675 vs. 0.685, P > 0.05), exhibiting a significant advantage over No-Apnea (0.622, P = 0.004 and 0.002, respectively). At RDI ≥ 15 and ≥ 30, NoSAS had the highest (0.676 and 0.668), and No-Apnea had the lowest AUCs (0.566 and 0.543). STOP-Bang performance measures fell between No-Apnea and NoSAS across RDI levels. In our sleep clinic population, No-Apnea demonstrated high sensitivity, NPV, accuracy, and F1 score for detecting OSA, but low specificity, PPV, and AUC.