Talita Rosa1, Kersti Bellardi2, Alonço Viana3, Yifei Ma4, Robson Capasso5. 1. Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Global Health, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California. 3. Graduate Program of Neurology, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Sleep Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep disorders in most individuals remain undiagnosed and without treatment. The use of novel tools and mobile technology has the potential to increase access to diagnosis. The objective of this study was to perform a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the available literature evaluating the accuracy of smartphones and portable devices to screen for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). METHODS: A literature review was performed between February 18, 2017 and March 15, 2017. We included studies evaluating adults with SDB symptoms through the use mobile phones and/or portable devices, using standard polysomnography as a comparison. A qualitative evaluation of studies was performed with the QUADAS-2 rating. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain the estimated sensitivity and specificity of screening SDB for four groups of devices: bed/mattress-based, contactless, contact with three or more sensors, and contact with fewer than three sensors. For each group, we also reported positive predictive values and negative predictive values for mild, moderate, and severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening. RESULTS: Of the 22 included studies, 18 were pooled in the meta-analysis. Devices that were bed/mattress-based were found to have the best sensitivity overall (0.921, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.870, 0.953). The sensitivity of contactless devices to detect mild OSA cases was the highest of all groups (0.976, 95% CI 0.899, 0.995), but provided a high false positive rate (0.487, 95% CI 0.137, 0.851). The remaining groups of devices showed low sensitivity and heterogeneous results. CONCLUSIONS: This study evidenced the limitations and potential use of portable devices in screening patients for SDB. Additional research should evaluate the accuracy of devices when used at home.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep disorders in most individuals remain undiagnosed and without treatment. The use of novel tools and mobile technology has the potential to increase access to diagnosis. The objective of this study was to perform a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the available literature evaluating the accuracy of smartphones and portable devices to screen for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). METHODS: A literature review was performed between February 18, 2017 and March 15, 2017. We included studies evaluating adults with SDB symptoms through the use mobile phones and/or portable devices, using standard polysomnography as a comparison. A qualitative evaluation of studies was performed with the QUADAS-2 rating. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain the estimated sensitivity and specificity of screening SDB for four groups of devices: bed/mattress-based, contactless, contact with three or more sensors, and contact with fewer than three sensors. For each group, we also reported positive predictive values and negative predictive values for mild, moderate, and severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening. RESULTS: Of the 22 included studies, 18 were pooled in the meta-analysis. Devices that were bed/mattress-based were found to have the best sensitivity overall (0.921, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.870, 0.953). The sensitivity of contactless devices to detect mild OSA cases was the highest of all groups (0.976, 95% CI 0.899, 0.995), but provided a high false positive rate (0.487, 95% CI 0.137, 0.851). The remaining groups of devices showed low sensitivity and heterogeneous results. CONCLUSIONS: This study evidenced the limitations and potential use of portable devices in screening patients for SDB. Additional research should evaluate the accuracy of devices when used at home.
Authors: Mark B Norman; Sally Middleton; Odette Erskine; Peter G Middleton; John R Wheatley; Colin E Sullivan Journal: Sleep Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Paul Edouard; David Campo; Pierre Bartet; Rui-Yi Yang; Marie Bruyneel; Gabriel Roisman; Pierre Escourrou Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.324
Authors: Timothy Quy-Phong Do; Stuart Grayson MacKay; Matthew Eugene Lam; Anders William Sideris; Andrew Christopher Jones; Lyndon Sidney Chan Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Carlos O'Connor-Reina; Jose María Ignacio Garcia; Laura Rodriguez Alcala; Elisa Rodríguez Ruiz; María Teresa Garcia Iriarte; Juan Carlos Casado Morente; Peter Baptista; Guillermo Plaza Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 4.241