Cited by 237Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Diagnostic accuracy of level 3 portable sleep tests versus level 1 polysomnography for sleep-disordered breathing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
El Shayeb, Mohamed, Topfer, Leigh-Ann, Stafinski, Tania, Pawluk, Lawrence, Menon, Devidas·2014·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Greater awareness of sleep-disordered breathing and rising obesity rates have fueled demand for sleep studies. Sleep testing using level 3 portable devices may expedite diagnosis and reduce the costs associated with level 1 in-laboratory polysomnography. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of level 3 testing compared with level 1 testing and to identify the appropriate patient population for each test. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies of level 3 versus level 1 sleep tests in adults with suspected sleep-disordered breathing. We searched 3 research databases and grey literature sources for studies that reported on diagnostic accuracy parameters or disease management after diagnosis. Two reviewers screened the search results, selected potentially relevant studies and extracted data. We used a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model to estimate summary diagnostic accuracy parameters. RESULTS: We included 59 studies involving a total of 5026 evaluable patients (mostly patients suspected of having obstructive sleep apnea). Of these, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The estimated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was high, ranging between 0.85 and 0.99 across different levels of disease severity. Summary sensitivity ranged between 0.79 and 0.97, and summary specificity ranged between 0.60 and 0.93 across different apnea-hypopnea cut-offs. We saw no significant difference in the clinical management parameters between patients who underwent either test to receive their diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: Level 3 portable devices showed good diagnostic performance compared with level 1 sleep tests in adult patients with a high pretest probability of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and no unstable comorbidities. For patients suspected of having other types of sleep-disordered breathing or sleep disorders not related to breathing, level 1 testing remains the reference standard.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.130952

Cites

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?

  • Technical failure rate is higher for portable monitoring done at home than in the lab.

    “The technical failure rate is also higher for portable monitoring done at home as opposed to in the lab.583”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [583]

  • As disease severity increases, specificity increases and sensitivity decreases for type III devices.

    “In addition, as disease severity increases, there is increased specificity and decreased sensitivity.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [583]

  • Type III devices are both sensitive and specific for diagnosis of OSA.

    “The results showed that type III devices are both sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of OSA.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [583]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 106 · Cited by 237

Authors
El Shayeb, M., Topfer, L.-A., Stafinski, T., Pawluk, L., & Menon, D.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2013-11-11
Volume
186
Issue
1
Pages
E25-E51
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2098933452
Cited by
237
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Alberta
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10090)
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
sleep-disordered breathing, obstructive sleep apnea, home sleep apnea testing, polysomnography, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, apnea-hypopnea index
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sleep, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, 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