Diagnostic value of smartphone in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives To assess the diagnostic utility of smartphone-based measurement in detecting moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). Methods Six databases were thoroughly reviewed. Random-effect models were used to estimate the summary sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, diagnostic odds ratio, summary receiver operating characteristic curve and measured the areas under the curve. To assess the accuracy and precision, pooled mean difference and standard deviation of apnea hypopnea index (AHI) between smartphone and polysomnography (95% limits of agreement) across studies were calculated using the random-effects model. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results Eleven studies were analyzed. The smartphone diagnostic odds ratio for moderate-to-severe OSAS (apnea/hypopnea index > 15) was 57.3873 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [34.7462; 94.7815]). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.917. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 0.9064 [0.8789; 0.9282], 0.8801 [0.8227; 0.9207], 0.9049 [0.8556; 0.9386], and 0.8844 [0.8234; 0.9263], respectively. We performed subgroup analysis based on the various OSAS detection methods (motion, sound, oximetry, and combinations thereof). Although the diagnostic odds ratios, specificities, and negative predictive values varied significantly (all p < 0.05), all methods afforded good sensitivity (> 80%). The sensitivities and positive predictive values were similar for the various methods (both p > 0.05). The mean difference with standard deviation in the AHI between smartphone and polysomnography was -0.6845 ± 1.611 events/h [-3.8426; 2.4735]. Conclusions Smartphone could be used to screen the moderate-to-severe OSAS. The mean difference between smartphones and polysomnography AHI measurements was small, though limits of agreement was wide. Therefore, clinicians should be cautious when making clinical decisions based on these devices.