MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748759074 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002344

Association of STOP-Bang Questionnaire as a Screening Tool for Sleep Apnea and Postoperative Complications: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-analysis of Prospective and Retrospective Cohort Studies

2017· review· en· W2748759074 on OpenAlexaff
Mahesh Nagappa, Jayadeep Patra, Jean Wong, Yamini Subramani, Mandeep Singh, George Ho, David T. Wong, Frances Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalToronto Western HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaMeta-analysisOdds ratioMEDLINEPerioperativeSleep apneaCohort studyPolysomnographySystematic reviewInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studySurgeryApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The risk of postoperative complications increases with undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The high-risk OSA (HR-OSA) patients can be easily identified using the STOP-Bang screening tool. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the association of postoperative complications in patients screened as HR-OSA versus low-risk OSA (LR-OSA). METHODS: The following data bases were searched from January 1, 2008, to October 31, 2016, to identify the eligible articles: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Medline-in-Process & other nonindexed citations, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Sciences and Scopus. The search included studies with adult surgical patients screened for OSA with STOP-Bang questionnaire that reported at least 1 cardiopulmonary or any other complication requiring intensive care unit admission as diagnosis of outcome. We used a Bayesian random-effects analysis to evaluate the existing evidence of STOP-Bang in relation to OSA and to assess the association of postoperative complications with the identified HR-OSA patients by study design and methodologies. RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using 10 cohort studies: 23,609 patients (HR-OSA, 7877; LR-OSA, 15,732). The pooled odds of perioperative complications were higher in the HR-OSA versus LR-OSA patients (odds ratio 3.93, 95% credible interval, 1.85-7.77, P= .003; 6.86% vs 4.62%). The length of hospital stay was longer in HR-OSA by 2 days when compared with LR-OSA (5.0 ± 4.2 vs 3.4 ± 2.8 days; mean difference 2.01; 95% credible interval, 0.77-3.24; P= .005). Meta-regression to adjust for baseline confounding factors and subgroup analysis did not materially change the results. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that HR-OSA is related with higher risk of postoperative adverse events and longer length of hospital stay when compared with LR-OSA patients. Our findings support the implementation of the STOP-Bang screening tool for perioperative risk stratification.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207