Sex-dependent GOAL screening performance in adults at risk for obstructive sleep apnea.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate possible sex-related differences in the performance of the GOAL, a 4-item obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) screening instrument in adults. METHODS: Between July 2019 and June 2021, this cross-sectional study included consecutively recruited patients from one Brazilian sleep laboratory undergoing overnight polysomnography. Individuals with GOAL scores ≥ 2 of a maximum of 4 points are classified at high risk for OSA diagnosis. Actual OSA severity was based on the apnea-hypopnea index: ≥ 5.0/h as any OSA, ≥ 15.0/h as moderate-to-severe OSA, and ≥ 30.0/h as severe OSA. Performance of the GOAL instrument in women and men was assessed by the discriminatory ability (obtained from area under the curve [AUC]-Receiver Operating Characteristic curves) and 2×2 contingency tables. RESULTS: A total of 2,978 subjects (55.3% males) were evaluated. The frequency of GOAL-defined OSA high-risk was statistically higher in men when compared to women (p < 0.001). The GOAL predictive parameters for screening all severity OSA levels were as follows: in females, sensitivity ranging from 58.2% to 78.3% and specificity ranging from 60.0% to 77.6%, while in males, sensitivity ranging from 90.5% to 96.9% and specificity from 20.7% to 46.8%. The GOAL questionnaire had similar discriminatory properties, assessed by AUC, in women and in men: i) any OSA: 0.741 vs. 0.771 (p = 0.204), ii) moderate-to-severe OSA: 0.727 vs. 0.737 (p = 0.595), and iii) severe OSA: 0.728 vs. 0.703 (p = 0.240); respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The GOAL instrument emerges as a useful tool for screening adult individuals and displays similar performance in both women and men.

Validation of GOAL questionnaire as screening tool for clinical obstructive sleep apnea: A large sample study in China.

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a serious disease with a high prevalence in the general population. The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of the GOAL questionnaire in the clinical screening of OSA and compare it with other existing screening tools. Materials and methods: Outpatients and inpatients who underwent polysomnography (PSG) examination at the Sleep Medicine Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from January 2013 to November 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The basic data such as demographic, medical history, etc., and PSG data of the patients were collected, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the curve (AUC) of GOAL and five other screening scales (the NoSAS score, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Berlin questionnaire, STOP, and STOP-Bang questionnaire) were calculated. Results: Data from 2,171 participants (1,644 male; 78%) were analyzed there were 1,507 OSA patients [Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) ≥ 5 events/h] among them, accounting for about 69.415%. No matter which cut-off point (AHI ≥ 5, 15 and 30 events/h), the AUC score reveals that GOAL questionnaire had comparable screening ability to the NoSAS and STOP-BANG, and performed better than the ESS, and the AUC scores of the STOP questionnaire and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) were both lower than 0.7. When the cut-off point of the AHI was 5 events/h, the AUC of GOAL was the highest at 0.799 (0.781-0.816), and its sensitivity was the highest at 89.1%. The sensitivity levels of the NoSAS score and STOP-Bang questionnaire were 67.4 and 78.8% respectively, while ESS and the Berlin questionnaire have higher specificity (70.2 and 72.3% respectively) but lower sensitivity (49.3 and 60.0% respectively). Conclusion: GOAL is a free, efficient and easy to manage tool with a screening ability comparable to NoSAS and STOP-Bang, and better than that of ESS.

Incorporating neck circumference or neck-to-height ratio into the GOAL questionnaire to better detect and describe obstructive sleep apnea with application to clinical decisions.

Objective: Although neck circumference (NC) and neck-to-height ratio (NHR) have been recognized as effective predictors of the clinical diagnosis of adult obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), they have not been included in the widely used GOAL questionnaire. Not coincidentally, the NHR has not been adequately considered in the development and validation of the STOP-Bang questionnaire, No-Apnea score and the NoSAS score. The motivation for the study was (1) to combine the GOAL questionnaire with the NC and NHR, respectively, to evaluate its predictive performance and (2) to compare it with the STOP-Bang questionnaire, the No-Apnea score, the NOSAS score, and the GOAL questionnaire. Materials and methods: This retrospectively allocated cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2017 to March 2022 in adults who underwent nocturnal polysomnography (PSG) or home sleep apnea testing (HSAT). In this paper, the GOAL questionnaire was combined with the NC and NHR, respectively, using logistic regression. The performance of the six screening tools was assessed by discriminatory ability [area under the curve (AUC) obtained from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves] and a 2 × 2 league table [including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-)] and compared under AHI ≥5/h, AHI ≥15/h, and AHI ≥30/h conditions. Results: A total of 288 patients were enrolled in the study. For all severity OSA levels, the sensitivity of GOAL+NC ranged from 70.12 to 70.80%, and specificity ranged from 86.49 to 76.16%. The sensitivity of GOAL+NHR ranged from 73.31 to 81.75%, while specificity ranged from 83.78 to 70.86%. As for area under the curve (AUC) value under ROC curve, when AHI ≥5/h, compared with GOAL (0.806), No-Apnea (0.823), NoSAS (0.817), and GOAL+NC (0.815), GOAL+NHR (0.831) obtained the highest AUC value, but lower than STOP-Bang (0.837). Conclusion: The predictive power of incorporating NC or NHR into the GOAL questionnaire was significantly better than that of the GOAL itself. Furthermore, GOAL+NHR was superior to GOAL+NC in predicting OSA severity and better than the No-Apnea score and the NoSAS score.

Prediction of obstructive sleep apnea using GOAL questionnaire in adults with or without excessive daytime sleepiness: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent disorder and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a frequently associated complaint. Our objectives were (1) to evaluate the predictive performance of the GOAL questionnaire in patients with or without EDS and (2) to compare its discrimination with that of 3 other validated instruments: STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, and NoSAS. METHODS: A cross-sectional study from July 2019 to March 2020 was designed with consecutive adults undergoing full polysomnography. Participants were grouped into 2 cohorts according to the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS): without EDS (ESS <11) or with EDS (ESS ≥11). Discrimination was assessed by area under the curve, while predictive parameters were calculated using contingency tables. OSA severity was classified based on apnea/hypopnea index thresholds: ≥ 5.0/h (OSA≥5), ≥ 15.0/h (OSA≥15), and ≥ 30.0/h (OSA≥30). RESULTS: Overall, 2627 patients were enrolled. In 1477 individuals without EDS, for the screening of OSA≥5, OSA≥15, and OSA≥30, GOAL showed sensitivities ranging from 79.3% to 91.5% and specificities ranging from 60.6% to 40.2%. In 1150 individuals with EDS, for the screening of OSA≥5, OSA≥15, and OSA≥30, GOAL reported sensitivities ranging from 86.2% to 94.5% and specificities ranging from 63.9% to 36.0%. In both cohorts, GOAL showed similar discrimination to STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, and NoSAS for predicting OSA≥5, OSA≥15, and OSA≥30 (all P values >.05). CONCLUSIONS: The GOAL questionnaire, a practical 4-item instrument, showed adequate predictive performance for the prediction of OSA. Moreover, its discrimination was satisfactory and non-inferior to that of STOP-Bang, No-Apnea, and NoSAS.

Identifying achievement goals and their relationship to academic achievement in undergraduate pharmacy students.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the achievement goal orientations of first-year with those of third-year undergraduate Australian pharmacy students and to examine the relationship of goal orientations to academic achievement. METHODS: The Achievement Goal Questionnaire was administered to first-year and third-year students during class time. Students' grades were obtained from course coordinators. RESULTS: More first-year students adopted performance-approach and mastery-approach goals than did third-year students. Performance-approach goals were positively correlated with academic achievement in the first year. Chinese Australian students scored the highest in adopting performance-approach goals. Vietnamese Australian students adopted mastery-avoidance goals more than other ethnicities. First-year students were more strongly performance approach goal-oriented than third-year students. CONCLUSION: Adopting performance-approach goals was positively correlated with academic achievement, while adopting avoidance goals was not. Ethnicity has an effect on the adoption of achievement goals and academic achievement.