Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Sleep Disorders
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 314534, 5 pages
Research Article

Comparative Study between Sequential Automatic and Manual Home Respiratory Polygraphy Scoring Using a Three-Channel Device: Impact of the Manual Editing of Events to Identify Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea

1Respiratory Medicine Unit, British Hospital, Perdriel 74, C1280AEB Buenos Aires, Argentina
2Respiratory Medicine Unit, Hospital Clinics, Cordoba Avenue 2351, C1120AAF Buenos Aires, Argentina
3Respiratory Medicine Unit, Hospital Alemán, Pueyrredón Avenue 1640, C1118AAT Buenos Aires, Argentina

Received 13 April 2015; Accepted 28 July 2015

Academic Editor: Giora Pillar

Copyright © 2015 Glenda Ernst et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Objective. According to current guidelines, autoscoring of respiratory events in respiratory polygraphy requires manual scoring. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between automatic analysis and manual scoring to identify patients with suspected OSA. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed 791 records from respiratory polygraphy (RP) performed at home. The association grade between automatic scoring and manual scoring was evaluated using Kappa coefficient and the agreement using Bland and Altman test and intraclass correlation coefficient (CCI). To determine the accuracy in the identification of  eV/h, the ROC curve analysis was used. Results. The population analyzed consisted of 493 male (62.3%) and 298 female patients, with an average age of years and BMI of  kg/m2. There was no significant difference between automatic and manual apnea/hypopnea indexes (aAHI, mAHI): aAHI 17.25 (SD: 17.42) versus mAHI (p; NS). The agreement between mAHI and aAHI to was 94%, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.83 () and a CCI of 0.83. The AUC-ROC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.99 (CI 95%: 0.98-0.99, ), 86% (CI 95%: 78.7–91.4), and 97% (CI 95%: 96–98.3), respectively. Conclusions. We observed good agreement between automatic scoring and sequential manual scoring to identify subjects with  eV/h.