ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2021
Toward standardizing the clinical testing protocols of point-of-care devices for obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn recent years, point-of-care (POC) devices, especially smart wearables, have been introduced to provide a cost-effective, comfortable, and accessible alternative to polysomnography (PSG)-the current gold standard-for the monitoring, screening, and diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Thorough validation and human subject testing are essential steps in the translation of these device technologies to the market. However, every device development group tests their device in their own way. No standard guidelines exist for assessing the performance of these POC devices. The purpose of this paper is to critically distill the key aspects of the various protocols reported in the literature and present a protocol that unifies the best practices for testing wearable and other POC devices for OSA.
methodsA limited review and graphical descriptive analytics of literature-including journal articles, web sources, and clinical manuscripts by authoritative agencies in sleep medicine-are performed to glean the testing and validation methods employed for POC devices, specifically for OSA.
resultsThe analysis suggests that the extent of heterogeneity of the demographics, the performance metrics, subject survey, hypotheses, and statistical analyses need to be carefully considered in a systematic protocol for testing POC devices for OSA.
conclusionWe provide a systematic method and list specific recommendations to extensively assess various performance criteria for human subject testing of POC devices. A rating scale of 1-3 is provided to encourage studies to put a focus on addressing the key elements of a testing protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32865729What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.