Internal Medicine Department at Bürgerspital Solothurn, 4500, Solothurn, Switzerland.
Center for Investigation and Research in Sleep (CIRS), University Hospital of Lausanne, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sleep Med. 2021 Mar;79:113-116. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2021.01.004. Epub 2021 Jan 6.
Because of their high costs and low availability, sleep recordings cannot be used as routine procedures for sleep apnea screening. Therefore, it is important to have a performant screening tool allowing to select patients at higher risk for sleep apnea who need further investigations. The goal of the study is to compare the performances of the three commonly used sleep disordered breathing (SDB) screening questionnaires in a clinical sample.
Clinical data and sleep studies performed in consecutive adult patients referred to the Lausanne University sleep center for sleep recordings between November 2016 and February 2018 were analysed. Berlin, STOP-Bang and NoSAS screening scores were calculated and compared with the sleep studies' results.
NoSAS score showed a NPV of 0.88, a PPV of 0.43 and a correctly classified rate of 71% for an AHI >15/h. STOP-Bang score had a slightly higher negative predictive value (0.92) but a very low positive predictive value (0.30) and a poor correctly classified rate (47%). Berlin score showed globally poor results (NPV:0.85, PPV: 0.29 and a correctly classified rate: 56%). NoSAS score had the highest area under ROC curves (0.78) compared to STOP-bang (0.71) and Berlin (0.62). NoSAS score however yielded a slightly higher rate of false negative than STOP-Bang score. NoSAS false negatives were mainly female snorers with a low neck circumference.
NoSAS score showed a better discrimination capacity compared to Berlin and STOP Bang scores in an unselected clinical population referred to a sleep center.
由于成本高和可用性低，睡眠记录不能作为睡眠呼吸暂停筛查的常规程序。因此，拥有一种性能良好的筛查工具来选择需要进一步检查的睡眠呼吸暂停高危患者非常重要。本研究的目的是比较三种常用的睡眠障碍性呼吸（SDB）筛查问卷在临床样本中的表现。
分析了 2016 年 11 月至 2018 年 2 月期间连续到洛桑大学睡眠中心进行睡眠记录的成年患者的临床数据和睡眠研究。计算了柏林、STOP-Bang 和 NoSAS 筛查评分，并将其与睡眠研究结果进行比较。
NoSAS 评分对 AHI>15/h 的患者具有 0.88 的阴性预测值、0.43 的阳性预测值和 71%的正确分类率。STOP-Bang 评分的阴性预测值略高（0.92），但阳性预测值非常低（0.30），正确分类率（47%）较差。柏林评分总体表现不佳（NPV：0.85，PPV：0.29，正确分类率：56%）。NoSAS 评分的 ROC 曲线下面积（AUC）最高（0.78），其次是 STOP-Bang（0.71）和柏林（0.62）。然而，NoSAS 评分的假阴性率略高于 STOP-Bang 评分。NoSAS 的假阴性主要是颈围较小的女性打鼾者。
在未选择的临床人群中，NoSAS 评分在睡眠中心就诊的人群中比柏林和 STOP-Bang 评分具有更好的鉴别能力。
