STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) has been used to detect patients with potential sleep disordered breathing (SDB). Recently, a 4-Variable screening tool was proposed to identify patients with SDB, in addition to the STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires. This study evaluated the abilities of the 4-Variable screening tool, STOP, STOP-Bang, and ESS questionnaires in identifying subjects at risk for SDB. METHODS: A total of 4,770 participants who completed polysomnograms in the baseline evaluation of the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) were included. Subjects with RDIs ≥ 15 and ≥ 30 were considered to have moderate-to-severe or severe SDB, respectively. Variables were constructed to approximate those in the questionnaires. The risk of SDB was calculated by the 4-Variable screening tool according to Takegami et al. The STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires were evaluated including variables for snoring, tiredness/sleepiness, observed apnea, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck circumference, and gender. Sleepiness was evaluated using the ESS questionnaire and scores were dichotomized into < 11 and ≥ 11. RESULTS: The STOP-Bang questionnaire had higher sensitivity to predict moderate-to-severe (87.0%) and severe (70.4%) SDB, while the 4-Variable screening tool had higher specificity to predict moderate-to-severe and severe SDB (93.2% for both). CONCLUSIONS: In community populations such as the SHHS, high specificities may be more useful in excluding low-risk patients, while avoiding false positives. However, sleep clinicians may prefer to use screening tools with high sensitivities, like the STOP-Bang, in order to avoid missing cases that may lead to adverse health consequences and increased healthcare costs.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) has been used to detect patients with potential sleep disordered breathing (SDB). Recently, a 4-Variable screening tool was proposed to identify patients with SDB, in addition to the STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires. This study evaluated the abilities of the 4-Variable screening tool, STOP, STOP-Bang, and ESS questionnaires in identifying subjects at risk for SDB. METHODS: A total of 4,770 participants who completed polysomnograms in the baseline evaluation of the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) were included. Subjects with RDIs ≥ 15 and ≥ 30 were considered to have moderate-to-severe or severe SDB, respectively. Variables were constructed to approximate those in the questionnaires. The risk of SDB was calculated by the 4-Variable screening tool according to Takegami et al. The STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires were evaluated including variables for snoring, tiredness/sleepiness, observed apnea, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck circumference, and gender. Sleepiness was evaluated using the ESS questionnaire and scores were dichotomized into < 11 and ≥ 11. RESULTS: The STOP-Bang questionnaire had higher sensitivity to predict moderate-to-severe (87.0%) and severe (70.4%) SDB, while the 4-Variable screening tool had higher specificity to predict moderate-to-severe and severe SDB (93.2% for both). CONCLUSIONS: In community populations such as the SHHS, high specificities may be more useful in excluding low-risk patients, while avoiding false positives. However, sleep clinicians may prefer to use screening tools with high sensitivities, like the STOP-Bang, in order to avoid missing cases that may lead to adverse health consequences and increased healthcare costs.
Authors: T Hori; Y Sugita; E Koga; S Shirakawa; K Inoue; S Uchida; H Kuwahara; M Kousaka; T Kobayashi; Y Tsuji; M Terashima; K Fukuda; N Fukuda Journal: Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.188
Authors: Jeffrey B Gross; Kenneth L Bachenberg; Jonathan L Benumof; Robert A Caplan; Richard T Connis; Charles J Coté; David G Nickinovich; Vivek Prachand; Denham S Ward; Edward M Weaver; Lawrence Ydens; Song Yu Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Timothy I Morgenthaler; Janet B Croft; Leslie C Dort; Lauren D Loeding; Janet M Mullington; Sherene M Thomas Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Catherine C Gao; Ekta Kapoor; Melissa C Lipford; Virginia M Miller; Darrell R Schroeder; Kristin C Mara; Stephanie S Faubion Journal: Menopause Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer A Ligibel; Madhuri Are; K Scott Baker; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Lee Jones; Allison King; Grace H Ku; Elizabeth Kvale; Terry S Langbaum; Kristin Leonardi-Warren; Mary S McCabe; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Mary Ann Morgan; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Muhammad Raza; Karen L Syrjala; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole McMillian; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908