Diagnostic Accuracy of Obstructive Airway Adult Test for Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Gasparini, Giulio; Vicini, Claudio; Benedetto, Michele De; Salamanca, Fabrizio; Sorrenti, Giovanni; Romandini, Mario; Bosi, Marcello; Saponaro, Gianmarco; Foresta, Enrico; Laforì, Andreina; Meccariello, Giuseppe; Bianchi, Alessandro; Toraldo, Domenico Maurizio; Campanini, Aldo; Montevecchi, Filippo; Rizzotto, G.; Cervelli, Daniele; Moro, Alessandro; Arigliani, Michele; Gobbi, Riccardo Gomes; Pelo, Sandro

doi:10.1155/2015/915185

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variables considered included jaw, region, neighboring structure (tooth, implant, edentulous), and type of implant. Then, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were obtained (Gasparini et al., 2015) and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) was evaluated according to the criteria described by Swets (1988).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of peri‐implantitis in the absence of baseline data: A diagnostic accuracy study

Romandini

Berglundh

Derks

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and radiographic evaluations made at a single time point during follow‐up in identifying (a) a history of peri‐implant bone loss and (b) the presence of peri‐implantitis. Material & Methods 427 patients provided with implant‐supported reconstructions 9 years earlier were evaluated clinically by Probing Pocket Depth, Bleeding or Suppuration on Probing (PPD, BoP & SoP) and radiographically. Bone levels were assessed relative to the most coronal point of the intra‐osseous part of the implant. A history of bone loss and diagnosis of peri‐implantitis was confirmed through baseline documentation (direct evidence). Diagnostic accuracy of radiographic bone levels at 9 years and clinical findings (indirect evidence/secondary case definition) in identifying a history of bone loss and peri‐implantitis were evaluated through correlation and multilevel regression analyses as well as receiver operating characteristic curves. Results were expressed as sensitivity/specificity and area under the curve (AUC). Results Bone levels observed at 9 years were highly accurate in identifying pronounced bone loss (>2 mm; AUC = 0.96; 95% CI 0.95–0.98). In the absence of baseline documentation, a secondary case definition based on the presence of BoP/SoP & bone level ≥ 1 mm (indirect evidence) provided the overall best diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.80; 95% CI 0.77–0.82) in identifying peri‐implantitis cases (direct evidence: BoP/SoP & bone loss > 0.5 mm). Moderate/severe peri‐implantitis (BoP/SoP & bone loss > 2 mm) was most accurately identified by the combination of BoP/SoP & bone level ≥ 2 mm (AUC = 0.93; 95% CI 0.91–0.96). Sensitivity of the secondary case definition suggested by the 2017 World Workshop of Periodontology (WWP) (BoP/SoP ≥ 1 site & bone level ≥ 3 mm & PPD ≥ 6 mm) was low. Conclusions The present results underline the importance of baseline documentation for the correct diagnosis of peri‐implantitis, especially in its early/incipient forms. The secondary case definition of peri‐implantitis suggested at the 2017 WWP demonstrated a high level of specificity but low sensitivity. Moderate/severe peri‐implantitis was most accurately identified by the combination of BoP/SoP & bone level ≥ 2 mm.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of peri‐implantitis in the absence of baseline data: A diagnostic accuracy study

Romandini

Berglundh

Derks

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was evaluated using Swets classification 20 : AUC = 0.5, the test has no diagnostic value; 0.5 < AUC ≤ 0.7, the test is accurate to only a small degree; 0.7 < AUC ≤ 0.9, the test is fairly accurate; 0.9 < AUC ≤ 1, the test is highly accurate; AUC = 1, the test is perfect. Optimal operating point (OOP) was determined based on the maximum Youden index (Youden index = sensitivity + specificity − 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences Between the “Chinese AMS Score” and the Lake Louise Score in the Diagnosis of Acute Mountain Sickness

Luo

2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chinese AMS score (CAS) is used in clinical medicine and research to diagnosis acute mountain sickness (AMS). However, the Lake Louise Score (LLS) is the well-accepted standard for diagnosing AMS. The difference between the CAS and LLS questionnaires is that the CAS considers more nonspecific symptoms. The aim of the present study was to evaluate differences in AMS prevalence according to the LLS and CAS criteria. We surveyed 58 males who traveled from Chongqing (300 m) to Lhasa (3658 m) via the Qinghai-Tibet train. Cases of AMS were diagnosed using LLS and CAS questionnaires in a few railway stations at different evaluation areas along the road. We subsequently evaluated discrepancies in values related to the prevalence of AMS determined using the 2 types of questionnaires (CAS and LLS). The prevalence of CAS-diagnosed AMS indicated that the percentage of AMS cases among the 58 young men was 29.3% in Golmud, 60.3% in Tanggula, 63.8% in Lhasa, 22.4% on the first day after arrival in Lhasa, 27.6% on the second day, 24.1% on the third day, and 12.1% on the fourth day. The prevalence of LLS-diagnosed AMS in Golmud was 10.3%, 38% in Lhasa, and 6.9% on day 1, the prevalence in each station was lower than that as assessed by the CAS. Our experimental data indicate that AMS diagnoses ascertained using the CAS indicate a higher AMS prevalence than those ascertained using the LLS. Through statistical analysis, the CAS seems capable of effectively diagnosing AMS as validated by LLS (sensitivity 61.8%, specificity 92.7%).

show abstract

“…Further, contingency tables including sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were constructed to describe the relationship between different thresholds of PPD (4–9 mm) and BoP (no bleeding, bleeding at 1–2 aspects, bleeding at 3–4 aspects) and bone loss (>0.5 mm, >1 mm, >2 mm). The ideal cutoff in terms of screening test was defined as the threshold presenting with the maximum specificity among those with the highest sensitivity (Gasparini et al., 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical findings and history of bone loss at implant sites

Berglundh

Romandini

Derks

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether clinical findings at implant sites are relevant as screening tests for a history of marginal bone loss. Material and Methods 427 patients provided with implant‐supported reconstructions 9 years earlier were evaluated clinically (probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP)) and radiographically. A history of bone loss was confirmed through baseline documentation. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic curves and multi‐level regression analyses. Results were expressed as sensitivity/specificity, area under the curve, and odds ratios. Results While the sensitivity of PPD in regard to bone loss was low, specificity was generally high. Multi‐level modeling revealed that each additional millimeter of PPD corresponded to an additional bone loss of 0.30 mm (95% CI 0.27; 0.33). The sensitivity of BOP in regard to bone loss >2 mm was 80.9% (95% CI 73.9; 86.7), while the specificity was 42.2% (95% CI 39.6; 44.8). Conclusions Clinical parameters at implant sites obtained at a single time point were associated with a history of marginal bone loss. While BoP demonstrated a high level of sensitivity, the sensitivity of PPD was generally low. The present data suggest that BoP is a relevant screening test for history of bone loss.

show abstract

Diagnostic Accuracy of Obstructive Airway Adult Test for Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Diagnosis of peri‐implantitis in the absence of baseline data: A diagnostic accuracy study

Diagnosis of peri‐implantitis in the absence of baseline data: A diagnostic accuracy study

Differences Between the “Chinese AMS Score” and the Lake Louise Score in the Diagnosis of Acute Mountain Sickness

Clinical findings and history of bone loss at implant sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About