Cited by 581Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

A systematic review of screening questionnaires for obstructive sleep apnea

Open access
Abrishami, Amir, Khajehdehi, Ali, Chung, Frances·2010·Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Abstract

Purpose Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may lead to life-threatening problems if it is left undiagnosed. Polysomnography is the "gold standard" for OSA diagnosis; however, it is expensive and not widely available. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the available questionnaires for screening OSA.Source We carried out a literature search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to identify eligible studies. The methodological validity of each study was assessed using the Cochrane Methods Group's guideline.Principal findings Ten studies (n = 1,484 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The Berlin questionnaire was the most common questionnaire (four studies) followed by the Wisconsin sleep questionnaire (two studies). Four studies were conducted exclusively on "sleep-disorder patients", and six studies were conducted on "patients without history of sleep disorders". For the first group, pooled sensitivity was 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.0-78.0%; I(2) = 23.0%) and pooled specificity was 61.0% (95% CI: 55.0-67.0%; I(2) = 43.8%). For the second group, pooled sensitivity was 77.0% (95% CI: 73.0-80.0%; I(2) = 78.1%) and pooled specificity was 53.0% (95% CI: 50-57%; I(2) = 88.8%). The risk of verification bias could not be eliminated in eight studies due to insufficient reporting. Studies on snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, and high blood pressure (STOP) and STOP including body mass index, age, neck circumference, gender (Bang) questionnaires had the highest methodological quality.Conclusion The existing evidence regarding the accuracy of OSA questionnaires is associated with promising but inconsistent results. This inconsistency could be due to studies with heterogeneous design (population, questionnaire type, validity). STOP and STOP-Bang questionnaires for screening of OSA in the surgical population are suggested due to their higher methodological quality and easy-to-use features.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12630-010-9280-x

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The NoSAS questionnaire has a sensitivity of 65%-90% in identifying sleep clinic patients with clinically relevant OSA.

    “while the NoSAS has a sensitivity of 65%–90% in identifying sleep clinic patients with clinically relevant OSA.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [429]

    The Results of accuracy outcomes section reports sensitivities for several screening questionnaires in sleep-disorder patients, but does not report a NoSAS result. Searches for “NoSAS” and “65%–90%” found no passage in our copy supporting the claimed sensitivity range for that questionnaire; the reported ranges concern other questionnaires. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is very little evidence on the benefits of widespread screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults without comorbidities.

    “There is very little evidence on the benefits of widespread screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults without comorbidities.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [429]

    The Results and Discussion assess questionnaire accuracy in patients with and without known sleep problems, not the benefits of widespread screening in asymptomatic adults without comorbidities. A search for screening benefits in that population found no passage addressing the claim; the copy instead discusses possible benefits in surgical patients. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abrishami, A., Khajehdehi, A., & Chung, F.
Affiliations
University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Chung, Frances
Venue
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
Published
2010-02-09
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
423-438
ISSN
  • 0832-610X (ISSN-L)
  • 1496-8975
OpenAlex
W1521879664
Cited by
581
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 42
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Toronto
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, OSA screening questionnaires, Berlin questionnaire, STOP questionnaire, STOP-BANG questionnaire, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, verification bias, snoring, hypertension, body mass index, neck circumference, surgical patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Bias, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review