CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 571Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

Validation of the Berlin Questionnaire and American Society of Anesthesiologists Checklist as Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Surgical Patients

Open access
Chung, Frances, Yegneswaran, Balaji, Liao, Pu, Chung, Sharon A., Vairavanathan, Santhira, Islam, Sazzadul, Khajehdehi, Ali, Shapiro, Colin M.·2008·Anesthesiology
DOI 10.1097/aln.0b013e31816d91b5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Because of the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and its adverse impact on perioperative outcome, a practical screening tool for surgical patients is required. This study was conducted to validate the Berlin questionnaire and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) checklist in surgical patients and to compare them with the STOP questionnaire. Methods: After hospital ethics approval, preoperative patients aged 18 yr or older and without previously diagnosed OSA were recruited. The scores from the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire were evaluated versus the apnea-hypopnea index from in-laboratory polysomnography. The perioperative data were collected through chart review. Results: Of 2,467 screened patients, 33, 27, and 28% were respectively classified as being at high risk of OSA by the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire. The performance of the screening tools was evaluated in 177 patients who underwent polysomnography. The sensitivities of the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire were 68.9-87.2, 72.1-87.2, and 65.6-79.5% at different apnea-hypopnea index cutoffs. There was no significant difference between the three screening tools in the predictive parameters. The patients with an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 5 and the patients identified as being at high risk of OSA by the STOP questionnaire or ASA checklist had a significantly increased incidence of postoperative complications. Conclusions: Similar to the STOP questionnaire, the Berlin questionnaire and ASA checklist demonstrated a moderately high level of sensitivity for OSA screening. The STOP questionnaire and the ASA checklist were able to identify the patients who were likely to develop postoperative complications.

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 · 10.1097/aln.0b013e31816d91b5

Cites

31 of 31 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 Berlin questionnaire has a sensitivity of 69-87% in surgical patients.

    “Its sensitivity is 69–87% in surgical patients.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [489]

  • The ASA checklist was validated in a surgical population with moderate sensitivity (72%-87%), comparable to the STOP and Berlin questionnaires.

    “The ASA checklist was validated in surgical population with a moderate sensitivity (72%–87%) which was comparable to both the STOP and Berlin questionnaires.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [489]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]8. Weinreich G, Plein K, Teschler T, Resler J, Teschler H: Is the Berlin questionnaire an appropriate diagnostic tool for sleep medicine in pneumologi- cal rehabilitation? [in German]. Pneumologie 2006; 60:737-42

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chung, F., Yegneswaran, B., Liao, P., Chung, S. A., Vairavanathan, S., Islam, S., Khajehdehi, A., & Shapiro, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Professor, Department of Anesthesia.
  • Research Fellow.
  • Research Analyst.
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Research Coordinator, Department of Anesthesia.
ORCID
Venue
Anesthesiology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2008-05-01
Volume
108
Issue
5
Pages
822-830
ISSN
0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aln.0b013e31816d91b5
OpenAlex
W1970984835
Semantic Scholar
077b75016f3be33786888c96ba6a7a9fe42560e6
Cited by
571
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 51
FWCI
22.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anesthesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, preoperative screening, Berlin questionnaire, STOP questionnaire, apnea-hypopnea index, polysomnography, diagnostic sensitivity, postoperative complications, surgical patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anesthesiology, Berlin, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Societies, Medical, Surgical Procedures, Operative, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Body Mass Index, Prevalence, 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