ICU sedation, delirium & recovery
Validity of non-contact methods for diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
Available data indicate contactless methods have high pooled sensitivity and specificity for OSA diagnosis with moderate to high level of evidence.
Study context
- Population
- Adults undergoing sleep apnea assessment with polysomnography and an experimental non-contact tool; majority referred to a sleep clinic (88.8%)
- Participants
- 2,653 adults · 28 studies
- Comparison
- Non-contact devices vs polysomnography for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) diagnosis
- Outcome
- Pooled sensitivity and specificity of the experimental device for OSA diagnosis vs polysomnography
Methodological detailsrisk of bias assessment, diagnostic accuracy
- Risk of bias assessment
- Diagnostic accuracy
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > 15)
| Group | Pooled sensitivity | Pooled specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-contact methods | 0.871 (95% CI 0.841,0.896, I2 0%) | 0.8 (95% CI 0.719,0.862) | 0.902 |
Non-contact methods
Pooled sensitivity0.871 (95% CI 0.841,0.896, I2 0%)
Pooled specificity0.8 (95% CI 0.719,0.862)
AUC0.902
Further pooled results
- Overall low risk of bias across all domains except applicability concerns (none conducted in the perioperative setting)
Original publication
Validity of non-contact methods for diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. Published 1 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →