The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sensitivity and specificity of the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), the maintenance of wakefulness test and the Epworth sleepiness scale: Failure of the MSLT as a gold standard
Abstract
SUMMARY: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is an important symptom that needs to be quantified, but there is confusion over the best way to do this. Three of the most commonly used tests: the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), the maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT) and the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) give results that are significantly correlated in a statistical sense, but are not closely related. The purpose of this investigation was to help clarify this problem. Previously published data from several investigations were used to calculate the reference range of normal values for each test, defined by the mean±2 SD or by the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. The ‘rule of thumb’ that many people rely on to interpret MSLT results is shown here to be misleading. Previously published results from each test were also available for narcoleptic patients who were drug‐free at the time and who by definition had EDS. This enabled the sensitivity and specificity of the three tests to be compared for the first time, in their ability to distinguish the EDS of narcolepsy from the daytime sleepiness of normal subjects. The receiver operator characteristic curves clearly showed that the ESS is the most discriminating test, the MWT is next best and the MSLT the least discriminating test of daytime sleepiness. The MSLT can no longer be considered the gold standard for such tests.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A New Method for Measuring Daytime Sleepiness: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale
Johns, M. W. (1991) · Sleep · doi:10.1093/sleep/14.6.540 · Cited by 17,364
Self-citation
Cited by
Upper-Airway Stimulation for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Strollo, P. J., Soose, R. J., Maurer, J. T., de Vries, N., Cornelius, J., Froymovich, O., Hanson, R. D., Padhya, T. A., Steward, D. L., Gillespie, M. B., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1308659 · Cited by 1,299
Weaver, T. E., Maislin, G., Dinges, D. F., Bloxham, T., George, C. F. P., Greenberg, H., Kader, G., Mahowald, M., Younger, J., & Pack, A. I. (2007) · Sleep · doi:10.1093/sleep/30.6.711 · Cited by 1,058
Vigilance, alertness, or sustained attention: physiological basis and measurement
Oken, B. S., Salinsky, M. C., & Elsas, S. M. (2006) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2006.01.017 · Cited by 887
Distinguishing sleepiness and fatigue: focus on definition and measurement
Shen, J., Barbera, J., & Shapiro, C. M. (2006) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2005.05.004 · Cited by 687
Evaluation of Positive Airway Pressure Treatment for Sleep Related Breathing Disorders in Adults
Gay, P., Weaver, T., Loube, D., & Iber, C. (2006) · Sleep · doi:10.1093/sleep/29.3.381 · Cited by 614
Metadata
- Authors
- Johns, M. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Sleep Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-11
- ISSN
- 0962-1105 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2869
- OpenAlex
- W2048437465
- Cited by
- 824
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sensitivity and specificity of the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), the maintenance of wakefulness test and the Epworth sleepiness scale: Failure of the MSLT as a gold standard. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2869.2000.00177.x
- The paper
- Johns, M. W. (2000). Sensitivity and specificity of the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), the maintenance of wakefulness test and the Epworth sleepiness scale: Failure of the MSLT as a gold standard. Journal of Sleep Research. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2869.2000.00177.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.