Relationship between the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in a sleep laboratory referral population.

Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Nature and Science of Sleep 01/2013; 5:15-21. DOI: 10.2147/NSS.S40608
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sleep health questionnaires are often employed as a first assessment step for sleep pathology. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) are two commonly employed questionnaire instruments. Aspects of sleep health may be measured differently depending on choice of instrument.
In a patient population at high risk for sleep disorders, referred for polysomnography (PSG), we evaluated the level of association between results from these two instruments. Questionnaire results were also compared with measured PSG parameters.
Records of patients undergoing overnight PSG in the sleep laboratory between February-June 2011 were retrospectively reviewed for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were met by 236 patients. PSQI and ESS scores, demographic information, and PSG data were extracted from each record for analysis. Four subgroups based on normal/abnormal values for ESS and PSQI were evaluated for between-group differences.
Of 236 adult participants, 72.5% were male, the mean age was 52.9 years (13.9), mean body mass index (BMI) 34.4 kg/m(2) (8.3), mean ESS 9.0 (4.8; range: 0-22), PSQI mean 8.6 (4.2; range: 2-19). The Pearson correlation coefficient was r = 0.13 (P = 0.05) for association between ESS and PSQI. Participants with an abnormal ESS were more likely to have an abnormal PSQI score (odds ratio 1.9 [1.1-3.6]; P = 0.03). Those with an abnormal ESS had higher BMI (P = 0.008) and higher apnea-hypopnea indexes (AHI) (P = 0.05). Differences between the four subgroups were observed for BMI and sex proportions, but not for AHI.
We observed limited association between these two commonly used questionnaire instruments, the ESS and the PSQI. These two questionnaires appear to evaluate different aspects of sleep. In terms of clinical application, for global assessment of patients with sleep problems, care should be taken to include instruments measuring different facets of sleep health.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We performed contact force (CF) monitoring during pulmonary vein (PV) isolation to evaluate CF according to sheath type, catheter position, and inadequate ablation. Thirty consecutive patients (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, 23; CHADS2 score, 0.5±0.7; age, 56±10years) who underwent PV isolation using a CF-sensing catheter were included. Data for operator-blinded CF, impedance, and duration of the "first touch" (first round of ablation in each PV) was collected. We compared the CF, maximum CF, force-time integral, average impedance, and impedance drop (Δ impedance) between different sheaths (Swartz™ vs. Agilis™) in 12 different catheter positions, and in inadequate first touches requiring additional ablation. A total of 1283 ablation points (Swartz™, 620 points; Agilis™, 663 points) were evaluated. The average CF was significantly higher in the Agilis™ group (17.8±13.0g) than the Swartz™ group (15.0±12.4g; P<0.001), especially in the anterior, inferior-anterior, and inferior-posterior sections of the right PV, and the top of the roof, and calina of the left PV. The Δ impedance showed a mildly significant negative relationship with the average CF (r=-0.206; P<0.001) and with the force-time integral (r=-0.279; P<0.001). Compared to first touches, the average CF and Δ impedance were significantly smaller in inadequate first touches in the Swartz™ group, but not in the Agilis™ group. CF for PV isolation was significantly different depending on the position of the catheter and the type of sheath. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Cardiology 10/2014; 177(3):970-976. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.09.189 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Sleep Medicine 09/2011; 12:S21. DOI:10.1016/S1389-9457(11)70074-0 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and/or orofacial pain (OFP) frequently experience poor sleep quality or suffer from comorbid sleep disorders. Study results suggest that in chronic pain patients, an improvement in sleep quality critically influences the outcomes of interventions on mood and pain. Yet, only a few studies have systematically sought to evaluate the sleep quality of TMD/OFP patients. Standardized and validated self-reported instruments designed for screening sleep disturbances or for the evaluation of treatment outcomes in this population would therefore enhance evidence and improve treatment options. The objectives of the present study were: (1) to review the self-reported instruments that measure sleep dysfunction in studies on TMD/OFP patients, by conducting a systematic literature search; (2) to evaluate their clinimetric evidence; and (3) to provide guidance for future research using such instruments. A total of 26 papers, using eight different instruments, were identified. The most frequently used questionnaires and the only ones with good clinimetric properties were the Insomnia Severity Index followed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. They were most reliable, valid and time-effective for measuring sleep dysfunctions in patients with TMD/OFP, with only a few practical constraints. Yet, in future studies, an assessment of the relationship between sleep disturbances and chronic pain will have to include instruments measuring the effect of mediator variables such as cognitive or emotional arousal. Research is required to clarify if existing self-reported questionnaires measuring these aspects will promote further insights or if there is a need for new instruments. This future research direction would blend into the overall biopsychosocial concept of TMD/OFP diagnoses and treatment.
    Sleep Medicine 11/2014; 16(1). DOI:10.1016/j.sleep.2014.07.023 · 3.10 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Nov 10, 2014