Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000

Comparison to conventional paper scoring

T. J. Hoelscher, William Vaughn McCall, J. Powell, G. R. Marsh, C. W. Erwin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study evaluated two methods of scoring taped polysomnographic data directly on the Medilog 9000 scanner: (a) screen-by-screen scoring, and (b) rapid screen scoring. Sixteen overnight polysomnograms recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders were scored using the above two methods and were also printed on paper for conventional paper scoring. Interscorer agreement was 87.8% for paper scoring, 85.5% for screen-by-screen scoring, and 84.2% for rapid screen scoring. Comparison of screen-by-screen scoring with paper scoring revealed small absolute deviations and correlations of r>0.90 for all sleep parameters, with the exception of brief (<2 min) awakenings (r=0.69). Rapid screen scoring resulted in slightly lower correlation and greater deviations from paper scoring on several sleep parameters, but appeared acceptable for most clinical purposes and greatly reduced the required scoring time. Although some statistically significant differences between scoring methods were observed, the size of effect was small and of doubtful clinical importance. These findings suggest that polysomnographic data recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders can be reliably and accurately scored on the Medilog scanner, obviating the laborious task of printing the taped data on paper.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)133-139
Number of pages7
JournalSleep
Volume12
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jan 1 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Sleep
Research Design
Printing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Hoelscher, T. J., McCall, W. V., Powell, J., Marsh, G. R., & Erwin, C. W. (1989). Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000: Comparison to conventional paper scoring. Sleep, 12(2), 133-139.

Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000 : Comparison to conventional paper scoring. / Hoelscher, T. J.; McCall, William Vaughn; Powell, J.; Marsh, G. R.; Erwin, C. W.

In: Sleep, Vol. 12, No. 2, 01.01.1989, p. 133-139.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hoelscher, TJ, McCall, WV, Powell, J, Marsh, GR & Erwin, CW 1989, 'Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000: Comparison to conventional paper scoring', Sleep, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 133-139.
Hoelscher, T. J. ; McCall, William Vaughn ; Powell, J. ; Marsh, G. R. ; Erwin, C. W. / Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000 : Comparison to conventional paper scoring. In: Sleep. 1989 ; Vol. 12, No. 2. pp. 133-139.
@article{cdf8ae5c59d342488b216a31a6877330,
title = "Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000: Comparison to conventional paper scoring",
abstract = "This study evaluated two methods of scoring taped polysomnographic data directly on the Medilog 9000 scanner: (a) screen-by-screen scoring, and (b) rapid screen scoring. Sixteen overnight polysomnograms recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders were scored using the above two methods and were also printed on paper for conventional paper scoring. Interscorer agreement was 87.8{\%} for paper scoring, 85.5{\%} for screen-by-screen scoring, and 84.2{\%} for rapid screen scoring. Comparison of screen-by-screen scoring with paper scoring revealed small absolute deviations and correlations of r>0.90 for all sleep parameters, with the exception of brief (<2 min) awakenings (r=0.69). Rapid screen scoring resulted in slightly lower correlation and greater deviations from paper scoring on several sleep parameters, but appeared acceptable for most clinical purposes and greatly reduced the required scoring time. Although some statistically significant differences between scoring methods were observed, the size of effect was small and of doubtful clinical importance. These findings suggest that polysomnographic data recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders can be reliably and accurately scored on the Medilog scanner, obviating the laborious task of printing the taped data on paper.",
author = "Hoelscher, {T. J.} and McCall, {William Vaughn} and J. Powell and Marsh, {G. R.} and Erwin, {C. W.}",
year = "1989",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "133--139",
journal = "Sleep",
issn = "0161-8105",
publisher = "American Academy of Sleep Medicine",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Two methods of scoring sleep with the Oxford Medilog 9000

T2 - Comparison to conventional paper scoring

AU - Hoelscher, T. J.

AU - McCall, William Vaughn

AU - Powell, J.

AU - Marsh, G. R.

AU - Erwin, C. W.

PY - 1989/1/1

Y1 - 1989/1/1

N2 - This study evaluated two methods of scoring taped polysomnographic data directly on the Medilog 9000 scanner: (a) screen-by-screen scoring, and (b) rapid screen scoring. Sixteen overnight polysomnograms recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders were scored using the above two methods and were also printed on paper for conventional paper scoring. Interscorer agreement was 87.8% for paper scoring, 85.5% for screen-by-screen scoring, and 84.2% for rapid screen scoring. Comparison of screen-by-screen scoring with paper scoring revealed small absolute deviations and correlations of r>0.90 for all sleep parameters, with the exception of brief (<2 min) awakenings (r=0.69). Rapid screen scoring resulted in slightly lower correlation and greater deviations from paper scoring on several sleep parameters, but appeared acceptable for most clinical purposes and greatly reduced the required scoring time. Although some statistically significant differences between scoring methods were observed, the size of effect was small and of doubtful clinical importance. These findings suggest that polysomnographic data recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders can be reliably and accurately scored on the Medilog scanner, obviating the laborious task of printing the taped data on paper.

AB - This study evaluated two methods of scoring taped polysomnographic data directly on the Medilog 9000 scanner: (a) screen-by-screen scoring, and (b) rapid screen scoring. Sixteen overnight polysomnograms recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders were scored using the above two methods and were also printed on paper for conventional paper scoring. Interscorer agreement was 87.8% for paper scoring, 85.5% for screen-by-screen scoring, and 84.2% for rapid screen scoring. Comparison of screen-by-screen scoring with paper scoring revealed small absolute deviations and correlations of r>0.90 for all sleep parameters, with the exception of brief (<2 min) awakenings (r=0.69). Rapid screen scoring resulted in slightly lower correlation and greater deviations from paper scoring on several sleep parameters, but appeared acceptable for most clinical purposes and greatly reduced the required scoring time. Although some statistically significant differences between scoring methods were observed, the size of effect was small and of doubtful clinical importance. These findings suggest that polysomnographic data recorded on Medilog 9000 recorders can be reliably and accurately scored on the Medilog scanner, obviating the laborious task of printing the taped data on paper.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024524038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024524038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 133

EP - 139

JO - Sleep

JF - Sleep

SN - 0161-8105

IS - 2

ER -