Cross-sectional analysis shows No-Apnea demonstrates superior diagnostic accuracy for obstructive sleep apnea, suggesting it may enhance screening in clinics.
This cross-sectional study investigated the No-Apnea tool's diagnostic ability to detect obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), across different severities (respiratory disturbance index [RDI] ≥ 5, ≥ 15, ≥ 30) compared to polysomnography (gold standard) in 2,087 consecutive patients attending a sleep clinic (age: 45.92 ± 13.46, male: 70.8%). We further compared the diagnostic performance of No-Apnea, NoSAS, and STOP-Bang tools. Across all RDI levels, No-Apnea showed superior sensitivity (96.9-99.0%, based on RDI thresholds), negative predictive value (NPV) (47.8-91.2%), negative likelihood ratio (0.10-0.22), and odds ratio (10.6-11.8). Across all RDI levels, NoSAS demonstrated the highest specificity (72.2-87.8%), positive predictive value (PPV) (67.5-97.4%), and positive likelihood ratio (2.21-3.87). No-Apnea achieved the highest accuracy and F1 scores at RDI ≥ 5 (90.37 and 94.8%) and ≥ 15 (74.75 and 84.8%). At RDI ≥ 5, NoSAS and STOP-Bang showed comparable areas under the ROC curve (AUC) (0.675 vs. 0.685, P > 0.05), exhibiting a significant advantage over No-Apnea (0.622, P = 0.004 and 0.002, respectively). At RDI ≥ 15 and ≥ 30, NoSAS had the highest (0.676 and 0.668), and No-Apnea had the lowest AUCs (0.566 and 0.543). STOP-Bang performance measures fell between No-Apnea and NoSAS across RDI levels. In our sleep clinic population, No-Apnea demonstrated high sensitivity, NPV, accuracy, and F1 score for detecting OSA, but low specificity, PPV, and AUC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jameie et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: