Cited by 125Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Validation of a Self-Applied Unattended Monitor for Sleep Disordered Breathing

Open access
Ayappa, Indu, Norman, Robert G., Seelall, Vijay, Rapoport, David M.·2008·Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine

Abstract

Study objectives To evaluate the validity of the Apnea Risk Evaluation System (ARES) Unicorder, a self-applied, limited-channel portable monitoring device for the evaluation of sleep disordered breathing (SDB). Design Prospective study with blinded analysis. Setting Sleep disorder center, academic institution. Participants Eighty patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and 22 volunteers. Interventions N/A. Measurements and results Subjects used the ARES Unicorder at home for 2 nights using only written instructions. Within 2 weeks, they returned to the laboratory for full nocturnal polysomnography (NPSG) with simultaneous monitoring with the Unicorder. NPSGs were scored manually to obtain an apnea-hypopnea index based on Medicare guidelines (AHI4%) and a respiratory disturbance index (RDI). ARES studies were autoscored and reviewed to obtain indices based on equivalent definitions i.e., AHI4%(ARES) and apnea hypopnea (events with 1% desaturation) index (AHI1%(ARES)). Indices from the NPSG were compared to the in-lab ARES and in-home ARES indices using mean differences and the intraclass correlations (ICC). For the in-lab comparison, there was high concordance between AHI4%(NPSG) and AHI4%(ARES) (ICC = 0. 96, mean difference = 0.5/hour) and RDI(NPSG ) and AHI1%(ARES) (ICC =0.93, mean difference = 3.2/hour). For NPSG versus In-Home ARES comparison, there was good concordance between AHI4%(NPSG) and AHI4%(ARES) (ICC = 0.8, mean difference = 4.1/…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5664/jcsm.27075

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ayappa, I., Norman, R. G., Seelall, V., & Rapoport, D. M.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
Published
2008-02-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
26-37
ISSN
  • 1550-9389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9397
OpenAlex
W2139611461
Cited by
125
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000096)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
sleep-disordered breathing, obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome, home sleep apnea testing, device validation, apnea-hypopnea index, respiratory disturbance index, diagnostic accuracy, polysomnography comparison, sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, sleep apnea screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Self Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Software, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, 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