Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Interrater reliability of sleep stage scoring: a meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Interrater reliability of sleep stage scoring: a meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Interrater reliability of sleep stage scoring: a meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Interrater reliability of sleep stage scoring: a meta-analysis
2022
Overview
Study Objectives:We evaluated the interrater reliabilities of manual polysomnography sleep stage scoring. We included all studies that employed Rechtschaffen and Kales rules or American Academy of Sleep Medicine standards. We sought the overall degree of agreement and those for each stage.Methods:The keywords were “Polysomnography (PSG),” “sleep staging,” “Rechtschaffen and Kales (R&K),” “American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM),” “interrater (interscorer) reliability,” and “Cohen’s kappa.” We searched PubMed, OVID Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, KoreaMed, KISS, and the MedRIC. The exclusion criteria included automatic scoring and pediatric patients. We collected data on scorer histories, scoring rules, numbers of epochs scored, and the underlying diseases of the patients.Results:A total of 101 publications were retrieved; 11 satisfied the selection criteria. The Cohen’s kappa for manual, overall sleep scoring was 0.76, indicating substantial agreement (95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.81; P < .001). By sleep stage, the figures were 0.70, 0.24, 0.57, 0.57, and 0.69 for the W, N1, N2, N3, and R stages, respectively. The interrater reliabilities for stage N2 and N3 sleep were moderate, and that for stage N1 sleep was only fair.Conclusions:We conducted a meta-analysis to generalize the variation in manual scoring of polysomnography and provide reference data for automatic sleep stage scoring systems. The reliability of manual scorers of polysomnography sleep stages was substantial. However, for certain stages, the results were poor; validity requires improvement.Citation:Lee YJ, Lee JY, Cho JH, Choi JH. Interrater reliability of sleep stage scoring: a meta-analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(1):193–202.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
