| Title |
The prevalence of REM-related obstructive sleep apnoea is reduced by the AASM 2012 hypopnoea criteria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sleep and Breathing, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11325-017-1526-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brett Duce, Antti Kulkas, Christian Langton, Juha Töyräs, Craig Hukins |
| Abstract |
The variations in reported prevalence of rapid eye movement-related obstructive sleep apnoea (REM-OSA) have been attributed to different definitions, although the effect of hypopnoea criteria has not been previously investigated. Within this retrospective study, 134 of 382 consecutive patients undertaking polysomnography (PSG) for the suspicion of OSA met the inclusion criteria. PSGs were scored using both the 2007 AASM recommended hypopnoea criteria (AASM2007Rec) and the 2012 AASM recommended hypopnoea criteria (AASM2012Rec). For each hypopnoea criteria, REM-OSA patients were grouped as REM-related [either as REM-predominant OSA (rpOSA) or REM-isolated OSA (riOSA)] or non-stage-specific OSA (nssOSA). Outcome measures (SF-36, FOSQ and DASS-21) were also compared between groups. Incorporation of the AASM2012Rec criteria compared to the AASM2007Rec criteria increased the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) for NREM and REM sleep but decreased the AHIREM/AHINREM ratio from 1.9 to 1.3 (p < 0.001). It also decreased the prevalence of riOSA [15.7 vs 2.2% (p < 0.001) for AASM2007Rec and AASM2012Rec, respectively]. The prevalence of rpOSA remained the same for each hypopnoea criteria although the prevalence of nssOSA increased with the AASM2012Rec hypopnoea criteria [53.0 vs 66.4% (p < 0.006) for AASM2007Rec and AASM2012Rec, respectively]. There were no differences in clinical symptoms between the groups, irrespective of hypopnoea criteria used. This study demonstrates that in comparison with AASM2007Rec, the AASM2012Rec hypopnoea criteria reduce the prevalence of riOSA but not rpOSA by reducing the ratio of REM respiratory events and NREM respiratory events. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 23% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,925,200
of 24,287,598 outputs
Outputs from Sleep and Breathing
#513
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,787
of 320,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sleep and Breathing
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,598 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,451 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.