2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.08.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Questionnaire OSA-18 has poor validity compared to polysomnography in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
53
2
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
53
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This is well in line with several previous studies, 7,21 and a recent metaanalysis comparing improvements in OSA-18 in 20 studies of TE and TT concluded that there was no significant difference. 8 The score of the OSA-18 is not correlated to the severity of OSA and has no diagnostic power, 22 but as a measure of quality of life, these improvements must be considered clinically relevant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is well in line with several previous studies, 7,21 and a recent metaanalysis comparing improvements in OSA-18 in 20 studies of TE and TT concluded that there was no significant difference. 8 The score of the OSA-18 is not correlated to the severity of OSA and has no diagnostic power, 22 but as a measure of quality of life, these improvements must be considered clinically relevant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…d) Low sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing OSAS by the OSAS score were found in a meta-analysis [166]. A class III study has demonstrated low sensitivity and specificity of OSA-18 score of >60 for predicting AHI >1 episode·h −1 [167].…”
Section: 4mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though often administered, the OSA-18 was found to have poor sensitivity in identifying OSA among a sample of 225 children, as most children with severe OSA were not correctly diagnosed [8]. In a study examining 56 children with DS, the positive predictive value for parental-based diagnoses of OSA was 36.4% (4/11), while the negative predictive value was 45.8% (11/24) [4].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%