Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.

Sec. Pulmonary Medicine

Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1645703

This article is part of the Research TopicLatest Insights and Translational Advances in Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA)View all 3 articles

Validation of the Efficacy of the GPSS Questionnaire for Screening Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Provisionally accepted
Zhuoji  LiZhuoji LiHanyue  LiuHanyue LiuShuyue  ZhouShuyue ZhouXiaomi  ChenXiaomi ChenHuimin  Xiaomi ChenHuimin Xiaomi ChenQinghua Chen  Qinghua ChenQinghua Chen Qinghua ChenZhitao  MiaoZhitao MiaoJunfen  ChengJunfen ChengZhaojun  ChenZhaojun ChenYuli  CaiYuli CaiHuizhao  LiaoHuizhao LiaoSun  TingtingSun TingtingRiken  ChenRiken Chen*Lijuan  ZengLijuan ZengLishu  ZhangLishu Zhang
  • Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

This study aimed to compare the screening performance of a newly developed screening questionnaire for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), Methods The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC) of each OSA screening questionnaire were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic performance. Results: The prevalence of OSA was 69.3% in the first group and 79.5% in the second group. In the first group, neck circumference, waist circumference, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, age, height, weight, BMI , and gender characteristics showed significant differences between the OSA group and the non-OSA group. In the comparison of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the five questionnaires among patients in the first group, for all OSA patients, the GPSS questionnaire had superior specificity and positive predictive value compared to other questionnaires; for moderate/severe OSA patients, the GPSS questionnaire had lower sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV than the other four questionnaires. In the second group, among all OSA patients, the GPSS questionnaire had superior sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value compared to the other questionnaires; among moderate/severe OSA patients, the GPSS questionnaire had superior specificity and positive predictive value compared to the other questionnaires. ROC analysis results showed that in the first group, the GPSS questionnaire had superior sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value compared to the other questionnaires among all OSA patients, moderate OSA patients, and severe OSA patients, with values of 0.75 (95% CI:0.73–0.77), 0.73 (95% CI:0.71–0.75), and 0.73 (95% CI:0.71–0.75), respectively. In the second group, the GPSS questionnaire outperformed the other four scales in all OSA patients and moderate OSA patients, with values of 0.77 (95% CI:0.72–0.83) and 0.75 (95% CI:0.70–0.80), respectively. However, it still had some reference value in patients with severe OSA, with a value of 0.69 (95% CI:0.62–0.75). Conclusion .According to the ROC results, the GPSS questionnaire was superior to the other 4 scales in screening for mild-to-moderate OSA, but it still has room for improvement in severe OSA.

Keywords: obstructive sleep apnoea, GPSS questionnaire, Diagnostic efficacy, NoSAS, STOP-bang

Received: 12 Jun 2025; Accepted: 29 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Li, Liu, Zhou, Chen, Chen, Qinghua Chen, Miao, Cheng, Chen, Cai, Liao, Tingting, Chen, Zeng and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Riken Chen, chenriken@126.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.