Cited by 297Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesSleep and related disorders

A Meta-analysis of Clinical Screening Tests for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Open access
Ramachandran, Satya Krishna, Josephs, Lydia A.·2009·Anesthesiology

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare clinical screening tests for obstructive sleep apnea and establish an evidence base for their preoperative use. Diagnostic odds ratios were used as summary measures of accuracy, and false-negative rates were used as measures of missed diagnosis with each screening test in this review. Metaregression revealed that clinical models, logarithmic equations, combined techniques, cephalometry, and morphometry are significant characteristics, whereas body mass index, history of hypertension, and nocturnal choking are significant test elements associated with higher diagnostic accuracy. Test accuracy in repeated validation studies of the same screening test is variable, suggesting an underlying heterogeneity in either the clinical presentation of obstructive sleep apnea or the measured clinical elements of these models. Based on the false-negative rates, it is likely that most of the clinical screening tests will miss a significant proportion of patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

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.0b013e31819c47b6

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Cephalometry alone may miss a significant proportion of patients with OSA in low-risk populations.

    “Analysis of preoperative clinical screening tests for OSA revealed that cephalometry alone may miss a significant proportion of patients with OSA in low-risk populations.561”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [561]

    The Discussion (p. 6) says false-negative rates mean most clinical prediction models may miss a significant proportion of patients with OSA. Study Limitations (p. 11) warns that models tested in high-risk patients can have lower sensitivity in lower-risk populations. The paper does not establish that cephalometry alone has this false-negative rate; it describes a combined clinical-cephalometry model as among the most accurate. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [2]2. Kaw RR, Golish JJ, Ghamande SS, Burgess RR, Foldvary NN, Walker EE: Incremental risk of obstructive sleep apnea on cardiac surgical outcomes. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2006; 47:683-9
  2. [7]7. Arzt M, Young T, Finn L, Skatrud JB, Bradley TD: Association of sleepdisordered breathing and the occurrence of stroke. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 172:1447-51
  3. [17]17. Ross SD, Sheinhait IA, Harrison KJ, Kvasz M, Connelly JE, Shea SA, Allen IE: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature regarding the diagnosis of sleep apnea. Sleep 2000; 23:519-32
  4. [19]19. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3:1-13
  5. [21]21. Blackman NJ-M, ter Riet G, Kessels AGH, Bachmann LM: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests (letter). BMJ 2001; 323: 1188
  6. [22]22. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A: Meta-DiSc: A software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6:1-12
  7. [34]34. Wittig RM, Romaker A, Zorick FJ, Roehrs TA, Conway WA, Roth T: Night-to-night consistency of apneas during sleep. Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 129:244-6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramachandran, S. K., & Josephs, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
  • Medical Student.
Venue
Anesthesiology
Published
2009-04-01
Volume
110
Issue
4
Pages
928-939
ISSN
0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090495868
Cited by
297
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 22
FWCI
2.52
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, preoperative screening, diagnostic accuracy, false negative rate, cephalometric analysis, morphometrics, body mass index, hypertension, diagnostic odds ratio, meta-regression
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Body Mass Index, Evidence-Based Medicine, 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