Literature DB >> 21537906

How reliable is the manual correction of the autoscoring of a level IV sleep study (ApneaLink™) by an observer without experience in polysomnography?

Carlos Alberto Nigro1, Silvana Malnis, Eduardo Dibur, Edgardo Rhodius.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the manual correction of the automatic analysis of ApneaLink™ between a skilled observer in the interpretation of sleep studies and a subject trained only in the scoring of ApneaLink™ device.
METHODS: Ninety-six subjects performed the ApneaLink™ and polysomnography (PSG) simultaneously in the sleep laboratory. Two blind observers, who were independent from the results of the PSG, performed first the automatic scoring and then the hand correction from the ApneaLink™ device. The scorers of ApneaLink™ represented two physicians with different levels of training (scorer A: 20 years of experience in reading polysomnography plus 3 years of experience in the interpretation of ApneaLink™, scorer B: 1 year of experience in the analysis of ApneaLink™). The interobserver agreement was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics. The diagnostic accuracy of the manual analysis ApneaLink™ device was evaluated by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC-ROC).
RESULTS: Ninety patients were included (69 men; mean age, 49.6; median RDI, 13.9; median BMI, 29.3 Kg/m(2)). The ICC between the manual apnea/hypopnea index from ApneaLink™ and the respiratory disturbance index of the PSG for each observer was similar (scorer A, 0.902; CI 95% 0.80-0.95; vs. scorer B, 0.904; CI 95% 0.86-0.94; p = 0.9). The agreement between the observers on the presence or absence of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) was very good (kappa, 0.83; CI 95% 0.69-0.98). The AUC-ROC was similar between the observers (scorer A, 0.88; CI 95% 0.78-0.98; scorer B, 0.83; CI 95% 0.71-0.95; p = 0.5).
CONCLUSIONS: The non-expert observer showed a very good agreement with the expert observer on the results of the manual correction of the ApneaLink™ autoscoring. Both observers had similar diagnostic accuracy to identify subjects with OSAS when compared with PSG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21537906     DOI: 10.1007/s11325-011-0524-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sleep Breath        ISSN: 1520-9512            Impact factor:   2.816


  9 in total

1.  Reliability of scoring respiratory disturbance indices and sleep staging.

Authors:  C W Whitney; D J Gottlieb; S Redline; R G Norman; R R Dodge; E Shahar; S Surovec; F J Nieto
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  1998-11-01       Impact factor: 5.849

Review 2.  Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Comparison of the automatic analysis versus the manual scoring from ApneaLink™ device for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome.

Authors:  Carlos Alberto Nigro; Eduardo Dibur; Silvia Aimaretti; Sergio González; Edgardo Rhodius
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2010-10-03       Impact factor: 2.816

4.  Discrepancy in polysomnography scoring for a patient with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome.

Authors:  Masaaki Suzuki; Hanako Saigusa; Shintaro Chiba; Tomoko Yagi; Kana Shibasaki; Mineko Hayashi; Michiko Suzuki; Kiyoshi Moriyama; Kazuoki Kodera
Journal:  Tohoku J Exp Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Influence of training and experience in fine-needle aspiration biopsy of breast. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.

Authors:  M B Cohen; R P Rodgers; M S Hales; J M Gonzales; B M Ljung; J H Beckstead; K Bottles; T R Miller
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Pathology and probability. Likelihood ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves in the interpretation of bronchial brush specimens.

Authors:  S S Raab; P A Thomas; J C Lenel; K Bottles; K M Fitzsimmons; M S Zaleski; R J Wittchow; L W McPhaul; D D Slagel; M B Cohen
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.493

7.  Measurement error in visually scored electrophysiological data: respiration during sleep.

Authors:  D Bliwise; N G Bliwise; H C Kraemer; W Dement
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 2.390

8.  Estimating the sensitivity of cervical cytology: errors of interpretation and test limitations.

Authors:  G Ronco; G Montanari; V Aimone; F Parisio; N Segnan; A Valle; R Volante
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.073

9.  Clinical guidelines for the use of unattended portable monitors in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adult patients. Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

Authors:  Nancy A Collop; W McDowell Anderson; Brian Boehlecke; David Claman; Rochelle Goldberg; Daniel J Gottlieb; David Hudgel; Michael Sateia; Richard Schwab
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 4.062

  9 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Methodological strategies in using home sleep apnea testing in research and practice.

Authors:  Jennifer N Miller; Paula Schulz; Bunny Pozehl; Douglas Fiedler; Alissa Fial; Ann M Berger
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 2.816

Review 2.  Portable diagnostic devices for identifying obstructive sleep apnea among commercial motor vehicle drivers: considerations and unanswered questions.

Authors:  Chunbai Zhang; Mark Berger; Atul Malhotra; Stefanos N Kales
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 5.849

3.  Screening for obstructive sleep apnea among hospital outpatients.

Authors:  Michel Hug; Katrin Uehli; Stig Solbach; Stefanie Brighenti-Zogg; Selina Dürr; Sabrina Maier; Jörg Daniel Leuppi; David Miedinger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.