...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Laryngoscope: A Medical Journal for Clinical and Research Contributions in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Medicine and Surgery, Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery .. >Laboratory versus portable sleep studies: a meta-analysis.
【24h】

Laboratory versus portable sleep studies: a meta-analysis.

机译：实验室与便携式睡眠研究：荟萃分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis study was to compare the accuracy of home sleep studies with laboratory polysomnography in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: Eligible studies included prospective cohort studies of portable and in-laboratory sleep studies performed on the same groups of patients. A comparison of respiratory disturbance index (RDI), mean low oxygen saturation levels, sleep time, rate of inadequate studies, and average cost per examination was made between portable and in-laboratory sleep studies. A total of 18 papers were identified in two independent Medline searches. RESULTS: RDI values on portable sleep studies were 10% lower on average compared with laboratory studies (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.92). There was no significant difference in the mean low oxygen saturation on portable versus laboratory studies (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10). Recorded sleep time was significantly higher by 13% for laboratory compared withportable studies (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89), and portable studies were significantly more likely to give a poor recording when compared with laboratory examinations (P = .0001). The cost of home studies ranged from 35% to 88% lower than laboratory studies across a number of countries. CONCLUSION: Home sleep studies provide similar diagnostic information to laboratory polysomnograms in the evaluation of sleep-disordered breathing but may underestimate sleep apnea severity. The lower cost of home sleep studies makes it a viable screening tool for patients with suspected OSA; however, these lower costs are partially offset by the higher rate of inadequate examinations.
机译：目的：本荟萃分析研究的目的是比较家庭睡眠研究与实验室多导睡眠监测在诊断阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停（OSA）中的准确性。方法：符合条件的研究包括对同一组患者进行的便携式和实验室内睡眠研究的前瞻性队列研究。在便携式和实验室睡眠研究之间进行了呼吸干扰指数（RDI），平均低氧饱和度水平，睡眠时间，研究不足率以及每次检查的平均费用的比较。在两次独立的Medline搜索中总共鉴定了18篇论文。结果：便携式睡眠研究的RDI值平均比实验室研究低10％（几率[OR]为0.90; 95％置信区间[CI]为0.87-0.92）。便携式和实验室研究的平均低氧饱和度无显着差异（OR，1.0; 95％CI，0.94-1.10）。与便携式研究相比，实验室记录的睡眠时间显着增加了13％（OR，0.87; 95％CI，0.86-0.89），便携式研究与实验室检查相比，记录不良的可能性更高（P = .0001 ）。在许多国家，家庭研究的费用比实验室研究的费用低35％至88％。结论：家庭睡眠研究在评估睡眠呼吸障碍方面可提供与实验室多导睡眠图相似的诊断信息，但可能会低估睡眠呼吸暂停的严重程度。家庭睡眠研究的较低成本使其成为可疑OSA患者的可行筛查工具;但是，这些较低的费用被较高的不充分检查率所部分抵消。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号