Chen Lily, Chapman Julia L, Yee Brendon J, Wong Keith K H, Grunstein Ronald R, Marshall Nathaniel S, Miller Christopher B
CIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 8;8(3):e019255. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019255.
Originally developed as a paper questionnaire, the electronic Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is widely used in sleep clinics and sleep population research. Despite potential differences between computer-based and conventional questionnaire delivery, studies have not evaluated the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the ESS. Given the widespread use of the ESS, a bias between results would present considerable data concerns. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine agreement between electronic and paper ESS responses in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA).
We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR: ACTRN12611000847910).
Data were collected in a tertiary sleep research laboratory located in Sydney, Australia.
Data were analysed from 112 adult patients with OSA.
Patients were given the English version of the ESS as part of a battery of sleep laboratory questionnaires. They completed electronic and subsequently paper ESS questionnaires on the same day.
We found no significant difference between electronic and paper ESS questionnaires (mean=0.1, SD=2.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5, P=0.57) or heteroscedasticity. There was no evidence of bias along the range of the measure. 95% limits of agreement at 4.3 and -4.1 were comparable with previous data.
We found no evidence of bias between electronic and paper ESS questionnaires in this sample of patients with OSA, as the two formats displayed sufficient agreement to be clinically comparable. Regardless of severity, patients reported the same level of daytime sleepiness with the same level of accuracy across both measures.
ACTRN12611000847910; Pre-results.
电子版爱泼沃斯思睡量表(ESS)最初是作为纸质问卷开发的,目前在睡眠诊所和睡眠人群研究中广泛应用。尽管基于计算机的问卷发放方式与传统问卷发放方式可能存在差异,但尚无研究评估电子版和纸质版ESS之间的一致性。鉴于ESS的广泛使用,结果之间的偏差可能会带来相当大的数据问题。因此,本研究旨在检验阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)患者电子版和纸质版ESS应答之间的一致性。
我们对一项随机对照试验(澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心:ACTRN12611000847910)的基线数据进行了二次分析。
数据收集于澳大利亚悉尼的一家三级睡眠研究实验室。
对112例成年OSA患者的数据进行了分析。
作为一系列睡眠实验室问卷的一部分,患者接受了英文版ESS。他们在同一天完成了电子版和纸质版ESS问卷。
我们发现电子版和纸质版ESS问卷之间无显著差异(均值=0.1,标准差=2.1,95%可信区间-0.3至0.5,P=0.57),也无异方差性。在测量范围内没有偏差的证据。4.3和-4.1的95%一致性界限与先前数据相当。
在该OSA患者样本中,我们未发现电子版和纸质版ESS问卷之间存在偏差的证据,因为这两种形式显示出足够的一致性,在临床上具有可比性。无论严重程度如何,患者在两种测量方式下报告的白天嗜睡程度相同,准确性也相同。
ACTRN12611000847910;预结果。