Incorporating neck circumference or neck-to-height ratio into the GOAL questionnaire to better detect and describe obstructive sleep apnea with application to clinical decisions release_zpbavbz22fam3cm43wh6cr6yaa

by Ying Zhao, Xiangru Yan, Chunguang Liang, Liying Wang, Hui Zhang, Haitao Yu

Published in Frontiers in Neuroscience by Frontiers Media SA.

2022   Volume 16

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title>Although neck circumference (NC) and neck-to-height ratio (NHR) have been recognized as effective predictors of the clinical diagnosis of adult obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), they have not been included in the widely used GOAL questionnaire. Not coincidentally, the NHR has not been adequately considered in the development and validation of the STOP-Bang questionnaire, No-Apnea score and the NoSAS score. The motivation for the study was (1) to combine the GOAL questionnaire with the NC and NHR, respectively, to evaluate its predictive performance and (2) to compare it with the STOP-Bang questionnaire, the No-Apnea score, the NOSAS score, and the GOAL questionnaire.</jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and methods</jats:title>This retrospectively allocated cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2017 to March 2022 in adults who underwent nocturnal polysomnography (PSG) or home sleep apnea testing (HSAT). In this paper, the GOAL questionnaire was combined with the NC and NHR, respectively, using logistic regression. The performance of the six screening tools was assessed by discriminatory ability [area under the curve (AUC) obtained from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves] and a 2 × 2 league table [including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR−)] and compared under AHI ≥5/h, AHI ≥15/h, and AHI ≥30/h conditions.</jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title>A total of 288 patients were enrolled in the study. For all severity OSA levels, the sensitivity of GOAL+NC ranged from 70.12 to 70.80%, and specificity ranged from 86.49 to 76.16%. The sensitivity of GOAL+NHR ranged from 73.31 to 81.75%, while specificity ranged from 83.78 to 70.86%. As for area under the curve (AUC) value under ROC curve, when AHI ≥5/h, compared with GOAL (0.806), No-Apnea (0.823), NoSAS (0.817), and GOAL+NC (0.815), GOAL+NHR (0.831) obtained the highest AUC value, but lower than STOP-Bang (0.837).</jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>The predictive power of incorporating NC or NHR into the GOAL questionnaire was significantly better than that of the GOAL itself. Furthermore, GOAL+NHR was superior to GOAL+NC in predicting OSA severity and better than the No-Apnea score and the NoSAS score.</jats:sec>
In application/xml+jats format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf   1.7 MB
file_gc5mg7wrlfhohmhi7gcky2y7kq
fjfsdata01prod.blob.core.windows.net (publisher)
web.archive.org (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2022-10-10
Container Metadata
Open Access Publication
In DOAJ
In ISSN ROAD
In Keepers Registry
ISSN-L:  1662-453X
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: 25b8dc4e-c0df-49da-be51-571b71206edb
API URL: JSON