Cited by 684Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Validation of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire as a Screening Tool for Obstructive Sleep Apnea among Different Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Nagappa, Mahesh, Liao, Pu, Wong, Jean, Auckley, Dennis, Ramachandran, Satya Krishna, Memtsoudis, Stavros, Mokhlesi, Babak, Chung, Frances·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for OSA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of STOP-Bang for screening patients suspected of having OSA and to predict its accuracy in determining the severity of OSA in the different populations. METHODS: A search of the literature databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Studies that used STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for OSA in adult subjects (>18 years); 2) The accuracy of the STOP-Bang questionnaire was validated by polysomnography--the gold standard for diagnosing OSA; 3) OSA was clearly defined as apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI) ≥ 5; 4) Publications in the English language. The quality of the studies were explicitly described and coded according to the Cochrane Methods group on the screening and diagnostic tests. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 9,206 patients met criteria for the systematic review. In the sleep clinic population, the sensitivity was 90%, 94% and 96% to detect any OSA (AHI ≥ 5), moderate-to-severe OSA (AHI ≥15), and severe OSA (AHI ≥30) respectively. The corresponding NPV was 46%, 75% and 90%. A similar trend was found in the surgical population. In the sleep clinic population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 25%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability rose proportionally to 35%, 45%, 55% and 75%, respectively. In the surgical population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 15%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability increased to 25%, 35%, 45% and 65%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms the high performance of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in the sleep clinic and surgical population for screening of OSA. The higher the STOP-Bang score, the greater is the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0143697

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • Among surgical patients, the STOP-BANG questionnaire has reported sensitivity of 91%.

    “the Berlin and STOP-BANG questionnaires have reported sensitivities of 79%–82% and 91% respectively among surgical patients”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [423]

    The pooled predictive parameters section reports 91% sensitivity for STOP-Bang among surgical patients, but specifically for detecting moderate-to-severe OSA with a score of 3 as the cut-off. The citing sentence omits that qualification; the same passage reports 84% sensitivity for any OSA. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The STOP-BANG questionnaire has a sensitivity of 94% for identifying clinically relevant OSA.

    “The Berlin and STOP-BANG questionnaires have sensitivities of 82% and 94%, respectively,422,423”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [423]

    The ‘Predictive parameters ... in the sleep clinic population’ passage reports 94% pooled sensitivity for moderate-to-severe OSA at a STOP-Bang cutoff of 3. The citing sentence gives 94% without those qualifications; the paper reports different sensitivities for surgical patients and the general population. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A STOP-BANG cutoff score of 5 had the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for moderate-severe OSA (AHI ≥ 15) in sleep medicine (60%, 72%) and surgical populations (45%, 56%).

    “The ROC curves for the STOP-BANG at different OSA severity classes showed a STOP-BANG cutoff score of 5 had the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for moderate-severe OSA (AHI ≥ 15) in sleep medicine (60%, 72%) and surgical populations (45%, 56%).”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [423]

    Table 4 (Discussion; page unavailable) reports exactly the stated sensitivity and specificity at a STOP-Bang cutoff of 5 for moderate-to-severe OSA: 60% and 72% in sleep-clinic patients, and 45% and 56% in surgical patients. The paper reports results across cutoffs but does not identify 5 as having the best combination of sensitivity and specificity. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among general clinic patients, the STOP-BANG questionnaire has reported sensitivity of 88%.

    “and 89% and 88% respectively among general clinic patients.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [423]

    The section on predictive parameters in the general population (page not available) reports 88% sensitivity for detecting moderate-to-severe OSA, but its participants were from the Sleep Heart Health Study, not general clinic patients. The same section reports different pooled sensitivities for sleep-clinic patients, so the claimed population is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The STOP-BANG is an 8-question survey with four subjective and four objective items, each positive item contributing 1 point up to 8.

    “The STOP-BANG is an 8-question survey including four subjective and four objective items with each positive item contributing 1 point for a maximum score of 8 points.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [423]

    The Introduction describes four subjective STOP items and four demographic Bang items; the scoring analysis uses scores up to 8. The paper does not explicitly say that each positive item contributes one point, so that scoring detail is not fully supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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
Nagappa, M., Liao, P., Wong, J., Auckley, D., Ramachandran, S. K., Memtsoudis, S., Mokhlesi, B., & Chung, F.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • MetroHealth Medical Center (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
  • Hospital for Special Surgery (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Chung, Frances
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-12-14
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
e0143697
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2205419122
Cited by
684
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 19
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Knowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Chicago
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • University Health Network Foundation
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, STOP-BANG questionnaire, OSA screening, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and negative predictive value, OSA severity, apnea-hypopnea index, respiratory disturbance index, polysomnography, sleep clinic patients, surgical patients, questionnaire validation, cross-population generalizability, risk stratification, risk score threshold
MeSH terms
Humans, Mass Screening, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Polysomnography, 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