SynthesisSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2025
Diagnostic value of wearable and contactless technologies for detecting obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Wearable Devices for Monitoring and Management of Comorbid Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Hypertension: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common sleep-related breathing disorder, affecting an estimated 1 billion adults worldwide. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of wearable and contactless sleep technologies as alternatives to Polysomnography (PSG) for the detection of OSA.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted from inception to September 2025 on PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ScienceDirect. Studies including adults diagnosed with OSA using PSG or HSAT and evaluated with wearable or contactless devices were included. Studies assessing the diagnostic performance of these consumer devices and reporting diagnostic accuracy measures were included. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias, and meta-analysis was performed.
resultsA total of 59 studies were included, with 3,768 participants in the contactless group and 2,743 participants in the wearable group. For AHI > 15, contactless devices demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90) and specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), with an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94). Wearable devices showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.92), specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.91), and an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95).
conclusionWearable and contactless sleep technologies demonstrate strong diagnostic accuracy. Their role is likely going to be to screen, and compliment PSG rather than replacing it, and providing utility in settings where access to traditional sleep testing is limited. More validation studies across populations, care settings, and comorbidities are needed to make clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41310031What 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.