Comparing MSLT and ESS in the measurement of excessive daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome
Department of Psychiatry, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 00, Hong Kong Journal of Psychosomatic Research
(Impact Factor: 2.74).
02/2005; 58(1):55-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.05.004
The objective of this study is to compare the use of Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) in measuring excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in patients with different severity of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS).
Two hundred ninety-six consecutive OSAS patients, with their EDS measured by a Chinese version of ESS and a five-nap MSLT, and their severity of OSAS (determined by respiratory disturbance index) by a nocturnal polysomnogram, were classified into mild (RDI 5-15/h, n=59), moderate (RDI 15-30/h, n=71) and severe (RDI >30/h, n=166) groups, respectively. Their ESS, MSLT and other sleep parameters were compared.
The severe group had significantly shorter mean sleep latency (MSL=6.26+/-4.90 min) than the moderate (8.26+/-4.57 min) and mild groups had (8.07+/-4.37 min). There was no significant difference in their ESS scores.
MSLT is better than ESS in the measurement of EDS in relation to the severity of OSAS in clinical patients.
Available from: Sang-Hee Hwang
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is one of the major symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is a questionnaire which is widely used to estimate the daytime sleepiness. Objectives: This prospective study was designed to evaluate EDS using ESS in untreated patients with different levels of OSAS and to compore the results with the healthy controls. Another purpose of the study was to elucidate the possible connections between the severity of OSAS, changes of sleep structure and the extent of EDS. Methods: Fifty- eight patients with OSAS and 43 healthy control subjects were included. All patents and controls underwent a nocturnal polysomnography and ESS questionnaire was administered. Results: The mean ESS score of the OSAS group was higher than that of the control group (p
Available from: Lars J Stovner
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the reliability of a new sleep questionnaire (sHUNT-Q) used in the Nord Trøndelag Health Study 3 (HUNT 3) performed between 2006 and 2008. Six of nine items were modified from a Norwegian version of the Karolinska Sleep questionnaire (KSQ). Overall, 50,839 (54%) out of 94,194 invited participated in HUNT 3. In a randomly selected group of participants, 297 (53%) out of 563 invited persons attended an interview by neurologists. The reliability of the sleep related questions was evaluated with Cohen´s kappa by blindly comparing the an-swers in the questionnaire with those from the semi-structured interview. Summary measure scores were calculated by summing the responses of the six modified KSQ questions, the three insomnia-related questions, and the two questions re-lated to respiratory disturbance during sleep. Agreement was calculated for dichotomized sum-score indexes based on 75% and 50% percentile cut-offs. Kappa values for the individual questions ranged from 0.35 to 0.52 in 3 x 3 tables while kappa for summary indexes in 2x2 tables ranged from 0.47 to 0.62. The best agreement between the interview and the questionnaire was found for respiratory disturbance defined as a summary measure score 50 percentile (kappa value 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.74). Reliability did not depend on the time between the HUNT questionnaire and the interview. The KSQ-based summary measure scores from the new sHUNT-Q sleep screening questionnaire may become a useful tool in epidemiological studies for identifying individuals with a persistent sleep disturbance.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.