↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pre- and in-therapy predictive score models of adult OSAS patients with poor adherence pattern on nCPAP therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Pre- and in-therapy predictive score models of adult OSAS patients with poor adherence pattern on nCPAP therapy
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s83105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yeying Wang, Alan F Geater, Yanling Chai, Jiahong Luo, Xiaoqun Niu, Bing Hai, Jingting Qin, Yongxia Li

Abstract

To identify patterns of adherence to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) use in the first 3 months of therapy among newly diagnosed adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAS) and their predictors. To develop pretherapy and in-therapy scores to predict adherence pattern. Newly diagnosed adult OSAS patients were consecutively recruited from March to August 2013. Baseline clinical information and measures such as Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Zung's Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and at the end of 3rd-week therapy were collected. Twelve weeks' adherence data were collected from the nCPAP memory card, and K-means cluster analysis was used to explore adherence patterns. Predictive scores were developed from the coefficients of cumulative logit models of adherence patterns using variables available at baseline and after 3 weeks of therapy. Performance of the score was validated using 500 bootstrap resamples. Seventy six patients completed a 12-week follow-up. Three patterns were revealed. Patients were identified as developing an adherence pattern that was poor (n=14, mean ± SD, 2.3±0.9 hours per night), moderate (n=19, 5.3±0.6 hours per night), or good (n=43, 6.8±0.3 hours per night). Cumulative logit regression models (good → moderate → poor) revealed independent baseline predictors to be ESS (per unit increase) (OR [95% CI], 0.763 [0.651, 0.893]), SDS (1.461 [1.238, 1.724]), and PSQI (2.261 [1.427, 3.584]); and 3-week therapy predictors to be ESS (0.554 [0.331, 0.926]), PSQI (2.548 [1.454, 4.465]), and the changes (3rd week-baseline data) in ESS (0.459 [0.243, 0.868]), FSS (3.556 [1.788, 7.070]), and PSQI (2.937 [1.273, 6.773]). Two predictive score formulas for poor adherence were developed. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for baseline and 3-week formulas were 0.989 and 0.999, respectively. Bootstrap analysis indicated positive predictive values of baseline and 3-week predictive scores in our patient population of 0.82 (95% CI [0.82, 0.83]) and 0.94 (95% CI [0.93, 0.94]), respectively. A high level of prediction of poor adherence pattern is possible both before and at the first 3 weeks of therapy. The predictive scores should be further evaluated for external validity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 44%
Psychology 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Linguistics 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,064
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,907
of 278,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.