MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use and Performance of the STOP-Bang Questionnaire for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Screening Across Geographic Regions

2021· review· en· W3135235935 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaMEDLINEPolysomnographyCINAHLMeta-analysisGuidelinePhysical therapyBody mass indexSystematic reviewPsycINFOSleep apneaApneaInternal medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent global health concern and is associated with many adverse outcomes for patients. Objective: To evaluate the utility of the STOP-Bang (snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck size, gender) questionnaire in the sleep clinic setting to screen for and stratify the risk of OSA among populations from different geographical regions. Data Sources and Study Selection: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, Embase, EmCare Nursing, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Journals@Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL electronic databases were systematically searched from January 2008 to March 2020. This was done to identify studies that used the STOP-Bang questionnaire and polysomnography testing in adults referred to sleep clinics. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Clinical and demographic data were extracted from each article independently by 2 reviewers. The combined test characteristics were calculated using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Random-effects meta-analyses and metaregression with sensitivity analyses were performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The combined test characteristics and area under summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to compare STOP-Bang questionnaire accuracy with polysomnography testing. Results: A total of 47 studies with 26 547 participants (mean [SD] age, 50 [5] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 32 [3]; 16 780 [65%] men) met the criteria for the systematic review. Studies were organized in different geographic regional groups: North America, South America, Europe, Middle East, East Asia, and South or Southeast Asia. The prevalence rates for all OSA, moderate to severe OSA, and severe OSA were 80% (95% CI, 80%-81%), 58% (95% CI, 58%-59%), and 39% (95% CI, 38%-39%), respectively. A STOP-Bang score of at least 3 had excellent sensitivity (>90%) and high discriminative power to exclude moderate to severe and severe OSA, with negative predictive values of 77% (95% CI, 75%-78%) and 91% (95% CI, 90%-92%), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of a STOP-Bang score of at least 3 to detect moderate to severe OSA was high (>0.80) in all regions except East Asia (0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.56). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the STOP-Bang questionnaire can be used as a screening tool to assist in triaging patients with suspected OSA referred to sleep clinics in different global regions.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.290 · 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