BACKGROUND

Digital clinical tools are a new technology that can be used in the screening or diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), notwithstanding the crucial role of polysomnography, the gold standard.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify, gather, and analyze the most accurate digital tools and smartphone-based health platforms used for OSA screening or diagnosis in the adult population.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies evaluating the validity of digital tools in OSA screening or diagnosis until November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were used as discrimination measures.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1714 articles, 41 (2.39%) of which were included in the study. From these 41 articles, we found 7 (17%) smartphone-based tools, 10 (24%) wearables, 11 (27%) bed or mattress sensors, 5 (12%) nasal airflow devices, and 8 (20%) other sensors that did not fit the previous categories. Only 8 (20%) of the 41 studies performed external validation of the developed tool. Of these, the highest reported values for AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.99, 96%, and 92%, respectively, for a clinical cutoff of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI)≥30. These values correspond to a noncontact audio recorder that records sleep sounds, which are then analyzed by a deep learning technique that automatically detects sleep apnea events, calculates the AHI, and identifies OSA. Looking at the studies that only internally validated their models, the work that reported the highest accuracy measures showed AUC, sensitivity, and specificity values of 1.00, 100%, and 96%, respectively, for a clinical cutoff AHI≥30. It uses the Sonomat-a foam mattress that, aside from recording breath sounds, has pressure sensors that generate voltage when deformed, thus detecting respiratory movements, and uses it to classify OSA events.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical tools presented promising results with high discrimination measures (best results reached AUC>0.99). However, there is still a need for quality studies comparing the developed tools with the gold standard and validating them in external populations and other environments before they can be used in clinical settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023387748; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=387748.