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

4Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

46644Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

42933Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

32879Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The parasomnia defense in sleep-related homicide: A systematic review and a critical analysis of the medical literature

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Quantitative Network Comparisons of REM Sleep Without Atonia Across the α-Synucleinopathy Spectrum: A Systematic Review

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Polysomnographic features prior to dream enactment behaviors in isolated rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Byun, J. I., Yang, T. W., Sunwoo, J. S., Shin, W. C., Kwon, O. Y., & Jung, K. Y. (2022). Comparison of rapid eye movement without atonia quantification methods to diagnose rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder: a systematic review. Sleep, 45(9). https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsac150

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 1

50%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

50%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 1

33%

Engineering 1

33%

Neuroscience 1

33%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free