STOP-BANG 和无呼吸暂停问卷在筛查商业司机阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停方面的比较。

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Traffic Injury Prevention Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1080/15389588.2024.2422447
Seyyed Ahmad Pour Hoseini Anari, Maryam Saraei, Samaneh Akbarpour, Moein Ala, Yousef Mokary, Atefeh Behkar, Arezu Najafi
{"title":"STOP-BANG 和无呼吸暂停问卷在筛查商业司机阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停方面的比较。","authors":"Seyyed Ahmad Pour Hoseini Anari, Maryam Saraei, Samaneh Akbarpour, Moein Ala, Yousef Mokary, Atefeh Behkar, Arezu Najafi","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2024.2422447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>No-apnea questionnaire (NAQ) and STOP-BANG questionnaire (SBQ) are widely used for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening. This investigation aimed to compare the SBQ with the NAQ as an OSA screening tool among commercial drivers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included eligible commercial drivers who came to the Occupational Health clinic between March 2018 and March 2019. Participants filled out the SBQ, NAQ, and ESS questionnaires. The SBQ scores eight factors to assess OSA risk, with a score of ≥3 indicating high risk. The NAQ scores age and neck circumference for OSA risk, with ≥3 indicating significant risk. The ESS measures daytime sleepiness, with a score of ≥10 indicating excessive sleepiness as the most common symptom of OSA. The patients' scores were evaluated based on the set criteria. A McNemar test was used to determine the differences between SBQ and NAQ. The number of at-risk patients was measured for each screening test, and the correlation between the two screening methods was evaluated by measuring Cohen's kappa coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total number of 581 commercial drivers, with a mean age of 44.39 ± 9.16 years, participated. The mean SBQ score was 1.82 ± 0.78, with 17.7% of participants being at high risk of OSA. The mean NAQ score was 3.48 ± 1.94, with 65.7% of participants being at high risk of OSA. About 48.6% of commercial drivers were at high risk, according to the NAQ but not SBQ. In contrast, 0.5% of participants were at high risk, according to SBQ, but not NAQ. Regarding ESS scores, among those identified as high risk for OSA by the SBQ, 13.6% exhibited an ESS score greater than 10. Similarly, within the high-risk group identified by the NAQ, this proportion was 14.1%. Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.17, which is considerably low. A McNemar test also indicated that the SBQ and the NAQ didn't have equivalent diagnostic outcomes (P-value < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The NAQ identified more professional drivers at risk for OSA compared to the SBQ, suggesting that objective-based questionnaires may be more effective for screening in safety-sensitive jobs like commercial driving. However, further validation with polysomnography and cost-benefit considerations are needed to determine the most efficient and sustainable screening approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The comparison of STOP-BANG and no-apnea questionnaires in screening obstructive sleep apnea among commercial drivers.\",\"authors\":\"Seyyed Ahmad Pour Hoseini Anari, Maryam Saraei, Samaneh Akbarpour, Moein Ala, Yousef Mokary, Atefeh Behkar, Arezu Najafi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15389588.2024.2422447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>No-apnea questionnaire (NAQ) and STOP-BANG questionnaire (SBQ) are widely used for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening. This investigation aimed to compare the SBQ with the NAQ as an OSA screening tool among commercial drivers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included eligible commercial drivers who came to the Occupational Health clinic between March 2018 and March 2019. Participants filled out the SBQ, NAQ, and ESS questionnaires. The SBQ scores eight factors to assess OSA risk, with a score of ≥3 indicating high risk. The NAQ scores age and neck circumference for OSA risk, with ≥3 indicating significant risk. The ESS measures daytime sleepiness, with a score of ≥10 indicating excessive sleepiness as the most common symptom of OSA. The patients' scores were evaluated based on the set criteria. A McNemar test was used to determine the differences between SBQ and NAQ. The number of at-risk patients was measured for each screening test, and the correlation between the two screening methods was evaluated by measuring Cohen's kappa coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total number of 581 commercial drivers, with a mean age of 44.39 ± 9.16 years, participated. The mean SBQ score was 1.82 ± 0.78, with 17.7% of participants being at high risk of OSA. The mean NAQ score was 3.48 ± 1.94, with 65.7% of participants being at high risk of OSA. About 48.6% of commercial drivers were at high risk, according to the NAQ but not SBQ. In contrast, 0.5% of participants were at high risk, according to SBQ, but not NAQ. Regarding ESS scores, among those identified as high risk for OSA by the SBQ, 13.6% exhibited an ESS score greater than 10. Similarly, within the high-risk group identified by the NAQ, this proportion was 14.1%. Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.17, which is considerably low. A McNemar test also indicated that the SBQ and the NAQ didn't have equivalent diagnostic outcomes (P-value < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The NAQ identified more professional drivers at risk for OSA compared to the SBQ, suggesting that objective-based questionnaires may be more effective for screening in safety-sensitive jobs like commercial driving. However, further validation with polysomnography and cost-benefit considerations are needed to determine the most efficient and sustainable screening approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2422447\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2422447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:无呼吸暂停问卷(NAQ)和STOP-BANG问卷(SBQ)被广泛用于阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)筛查。本调查旨在比较 SBQ 与 NAQ 作为 OSA 筛查工具在商业司机中的应用情况:我们纳入了2018年3月至2019年3月期间到职业健康诊所就诊的符合条件的商业司机。参与者填写了 SBQ、NAQ 和 ESS 问卷。SBQ 对八个因素进行评分,以评估 OSA 风险,得分≥3 表示高风险。NAQ 对年龄和颈围进行评分,以评估 OSA 风险,得分≥3 表示高风险。ESS测量日间嗜睡,得分≥10分表示过度嗜睡是OSA最常见的症状。根据设定的标准对患者的得分进行评估。采用 McNemar 检验确定 SBQ 和 NAQ 之间的差异。对每种筛查测试的高危患者人数进行了测量,并通过测量科恩卡帕系数评估了两种筛查方法之间的相关性:共有 581 名商业司机参加了筛查,他们的平均年龄为(44.39±9.16)岁。平均 SBQ 得分为 1.82 ± 0.78,其中 17.7% 的参与者属于 OSA 高危人群。NAQ 平均得分为 3.48 ± 1.94,65.7% 的参与者为 OSA 高危人群。根据NAQ而非SBQ,约48.6%的商业司机属于高危人群。相反,根据 SBQ 而非 NAQ,0.5% 的参与者属于高危人群。在ESS评分方面,根据SBQ被确定为OSA高危人群中,有13.6%的人ESS评分超过10分。同样,在通过 NAQ 确定的高危人群中,这一比例为 14.1%。科恩卡帕系数为 0.17,相当低。McNemar检验也表明,SBQ和NAQ的诊断结果并不相同(P值<0.001):与 SBQ 相比,NAQ 能识别出更多有 OSA 风险的职业驾驶员,这表明基于客观的问卷可能对商业驾驶等对安全敏感的工作进行筛查更为有效。不过,要确定最有效、最可持续的筛查方法,还需要与多导睡眠图进行进一步验证,并考虑成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The comparison of STOP-BANG and no-apnea questionnaires in screening obstructive sleep apnea among commercial drivers.

Objective: No-apnea questionnaire (NAQ) and STOP-BANG questionnaire (SBQ) are widely used for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening. This investigation aimed to compare the SBQ with the NAQ as an OSA screening tool among commercial drivers.

Methods: We included eligible commercial drivers who came to the Occupational Health clinic between March 2018 and March 2019. Participants filled out the SBQ, NAQ, and ESS questionnaires. The SBQ scores eight factors to assess OSA risk, with a score of ≥3 indicating high risk. The NAQ scores age and neck circumference for OSA risk, with ≥3 indicating significant risk. The ESS measures daytime sleepiness, with a score of ≥10 indicating excessive sleepiness as the most common symptom of OSA. The patients' scores were evaluated based on the set criteria. A McNemar test was used to determine the differences between SBQ and NAQ. The number of at-risk patients was measured for each screening test, and the correlation between the two screening methods was evaluated by measuring Cohen's kappa coefficient.

Results: A total number of 581 commercial drivers, with a mean age of 44.39 ± 9.16 years, participated. The mean SBQ score was 1.82 ± 0.78, with 17.7% of participants being at high risk of OSA. The mean NAQ score was 3.48 ± 1.94, with 65.7% of participants being at high risk of OSA. About 48.6% of commercial drivers were at high risk, according to the NAQ but not SBQ. In contrast, 0.5% of participants were at high risk, according to SBQ, but not NAQ. Regarding ESS scores, among those identified as high risk for OSA by the SBQ, 13.6% exhibited an ESS score greater than 10. Similarly, within the high-risk group identified by the NAQ, this proportion was 14.1%. Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.17, which is considerably low. A McNemar test also indicated that the SBQ and the NAQ didn't have equivalent diagnostic outcomes (P-value < 0.001).

Conclusions: The NAQ identified more professional drivers at risk for OSA compared to the SBQ, suggesting that objective-based questionnaires may be more effective for screening in safety-sensitive jobs like commercial driving. However, further validation with polysomnography and cost-benefit considerations are needed to determine the most efficient and sustainable screening approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Prediction of traffic accident risk based on vehicle trajectory data. Rear passenger restraint in frontal NCAP tests compared to the right-front passenger. The comparison of STOP-BANG and no-apnea questionnaires in screening obstructive sleep apnea among commercial drivers. A novel approach for safety assessment at unsignalized intersections: Integrating spatial metrics into postencroachment time analysis under heterogeneous traffic conditions. Alcohol perceptions and driving decisions among adolescents: Exploring the role of peer and parental influences in Virginia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1