Comparison of rapid eye movement without atonia quantification methods to diagnose rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder: a systematic review

Author:

Byun Jung-Ick1,Yang Tae-Won234,Sunwoo Jun-Sang5ORCID,Shin Won Chul1,Kwon Oh-Young246,Jung Ki-Young7ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Neurology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea

2. Department of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine , Jinju , Korea

3. Department of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital , Changwon , Korea

4. Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine , Jinju , Korea

5. Department of Neurology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital , Seoul , Korea

6. Department of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital , Jinju , Korea

7. Department of Neurology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital , Seoul , Republic of Korea

Abstract

Abstract Study Objectives Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep without atonia (RWA) is essential for diagnosing REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). Manual and automatic quantifications of RWA that use different criteria have been validated. This study compared the RWA quantification methods for diagnosing RBD. Methods The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systemically searched for studies published from inception to December 2021. The inclusion criteria were cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of RWA quantification methods. Pooled estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were determined. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework, respectively. Results Fourteen articles including 402 patients with RBD met the inclusion criteria. Manual methods evaluating any chin and phasic flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) activity had the highest DOR (138.8, 95% CI = 21.8% to 881.7%) and AUC (0.9686). The automatic REM atonia index (RAI) showed similar or higher sensitivity (89.1%, 95% CI = 84.6% to 92.7%) but a lower specificity (73.5%), DOR (43.1), and AUC (0.9369) than the manual techniques. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, manual RWA quantification that employed chin or phasic FDS activity had the best RBD diagnostic performance. The automatic RAI method may be useful for screening patients with RBD. The results should be interpreted carefully because of the high risk of bias in patient selection and significant heterogeneity among the studies. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42021276445.

Funder

National Research Foundation of Korea

Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Physiology (medical),Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3