Back

The Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire as a screening tool for sleep-related breathing disorders: An Umbrella Review

Okuji, D.; Newcity, A.; Yavari, A.; Shahraki, F.; Erhenede, O.; Ahmed, Q.; Patenaude, R.; Twi-Yeboah, A.; McGowan, R.

2024-05-15 dentistry and oral medicine
10.1101/2024.05.14.24307375 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this umbrella review was to assess available systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on the use of the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire as a screening tool for identifying sleep related breathing disorders in children, with subsequent referral from dentists to physicians. MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted with electronic databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire as a screening tool for pediatric sleep related breathing disorders. Eligible reviews were systematically selected and were assessed qualitatively with the AMSTAR 2 tool and quantitatively with meta-analyses methods. ResultsA total of 129 articles for possible inclusion were identified, and five studies were selected for quantitative analysis. Of these five studies, the overall AMSTAR 2 quality assessment showed two with moderate and three with low quality ratings. The five studies showed point-estimate mean values for prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, positive predictive value, negative predictive value as, respectively, respectively, 50.58, 74.97, 49.68, 58.16, 62.24 percent, and the diagnostic odds ratio as 6.94 percent for the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire tool. ConclusionsDentists should adhere to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry guidelines and know that there is low to moderate evidence to support the utilization of the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire as a sufficiently accurate screening tool for the diagnosis of sleep related breathing disorders in children, followed by an appropriate referral to a physician for comprehensive assessment and management.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.