Evaluation of Type 3 Portable Monitoring in Unattended Home Setting for Suspected Sleep Apnea: Factors That May Affect its Accuracy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the reliability of type 3 portable monitoring (PM) in a home setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study in sleep laboratory. Type 3 device (Stardust II) was evaluated in comparison with standard polysomnography (PSG) among patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Quality of recorded data and agreement between PM and PSG results were evaluated. RESULTS: Low quality of recorded data was observed only in 5 cases. Pattern of disordered breathing was recognized correctly by PM. Apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) correlated well with a mean bias of 3.7 ± 13.1/h. High sensitivity of PM was observed generally, whereas specificity was lower in mild patients. AHI, record time, and sleep position were found to be the main factors that would affect the accuracy of PM. CONCLUSION: Type 3 PM is feasible in unattended home‐setting for routine examination. Influence of the factors above should be comprehensively considered especially for mild patients.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Using a cutoff of AHI ≥ 15, the accuracy of Type 3 HSAT devices in a high-risk population ranged from 65% to 91%, based on six studies.
“Using a cutoff of AHI ≥ 15, the accuracy of these devices in a high-risk population ranged from 65% to 91%, based on six studies”
From Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Testing for Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline (2017) · cites this paper as [91]
When using an AHI ≥ 5 cutoff, accuracy of Type 3 HSAT devices in a high-risk population (assuming a prevalence of 87%) ranged from 84% to 91%, whereas in a low-risk population (assuming a prevalence of 55%) accuracy ranged from 70% to 78%.
“When using an AHI ≥ 5 cutoff, accuracy in a high-risk population (assuming a prevalence of 87%) ranged from 84% to 91%, whereas in a low-risk population (assuming a prevalence of 55%) accuracy ranged from 70% to 78% based on the seven studies”
From Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Testing for Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline (2017) · cites this paper as [91]
Seven studies evaluated the performance of Type 3 HSAT devices against PSG, with AHI cutoffs varying across studies.
“Seven studies evaluated the performance of Type 3 HSAT devices against PSG, but the AHI cutoffs employed varied across studies, resulting in sub-grouping by AHI cutoffs for our analyses.”
From Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Testing for Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline (2017) · cites this paper as [91]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kapur, V. K., Auckley, D. H., Chowdhuri, S., Kuhlmann, D. C., Mehra, R., Ramar, K., & Harrod, C. G. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine · doi:10.5664/jcsm.6506 · Cited by 3,253 · see citing works
Collop, N. A., Anderson, W. M., Boehlecke, B., Claman, D., Goldberg, R., Gottlieb, D. J., Hudgel, D., Sateia, M., Schwab, R., & Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2007) · Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine · doi:10.5664/jcsm.27032 · Cited by 1,550 · see citing works
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Devices for Out-Of-Center (OOC) Testing: Technology Evaluation
Collop, N. A., Tracy, S. L., Kapur, V., Mehra, R., Kuhlmann, D., Fleishman, S. A., & Ojile, J. M. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine · doi:10.5664/jcsm.1328 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
El Shayeb, M., Topfer, L.-A., Stafinski, T., Pawluk, L., & Menon, D. (2014) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.130952 · Cited by 237 · see citing works
Masa, J. F., Corral, J., Pereira, R., Duran-Cantolla, J., Cabello, M., Hernandez-Blasco, L., Monasterio, C., Alonso, A., Chiner, E., Rubio, M., et al. (2011) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.2010.152272 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yin, M., Miyazaki, S., & Ishikawa, K.
- Affiliations
- Akita University (JP)
- Shiga University of Medical Science (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Ishikawa, Kazuo
- Venue
- Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 204-209
- ISSN
- 0161-6439 (ISSN-L)
- 0194-5998
- 1097-6817
- OpenAlex
- W2004326825
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Otolaryngology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
- Keywords
- home sleep apnea testing, obstructive sleep apnea, polysomnography comparison, apnea-hypopnea index, diagnostic accuracy, sleep position, recording time, mild sleep apnea
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, 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
