Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep condition which is very heterogeneous although not formally characterized as such, resulting in missed or delayed diagnosis. Cluster analysis has been used in different clinical domains, particularly within sleep disorders. We aim to understand OSA heterogeneity and provide a variety of cluster visualizations to communicate the information clearly and efficiently.Materials and Methods: We applied an extension of k-means to be used in categorical variables: k -modes, to identify OSA patients' groups, based on demographic, physical examination, clinical his-tory, and comorbidities characterization variables (n = 40) obtained from a derivation and validation cohorts (211 and 53, respectively) from the northern region of Portugal. Missing values were imputed with k-nearest neighbours (k-NN) and a chi-square test was held for feature selection.Results: Thirteen variables were inserted in phenotypes, resulting in the following three clus-ters: Cluster 1, middle-aged males reporting witnessed apneas and high alcohol consumption before sleep; Cluster 2, middle-aged women with increased neck circumference (NC), non -repairing sleep and morning headaches; and Cluster 3, obese elderly males with increased NC, witnessed apneas and alcohol consumption. Patients from the validation cohort assigned to dif-ferent clusters showed similar proportions when compared with the derivation cohort, for mild (C1: 56 vs 75%, P = 0.230; C2: 61 vs 75%, P = 0.128; C3: 45 vs 48%, P = 0.831), moderate (C1: 24 vs 25%; C2: 20 vs 25%; C3: 25 vs 19%) and severe (C1: 20 vs 0%; C2: 18 vs 0%; C3: 29 vs 33%) levels. Therefore, the allocation supported the validation of the obtained clusters.Conclusions: Our findings suggest different OSA patients' groups, creating the need to rethink these patients' stereotypical baseline characteristics.(c) 2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Abstract
[No abstract available]

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract
PurposeTo identify psychoeducational interventions that target parents of children with congenital abnormalities (CA) and evaluate their impact on quality of life (QoL).MethodsThe search was conducted in six electronic databases, complemented by references of the studies found, studies of evidence synthesis, a manual search of relevant scientific meetings' abstracts and contact with experts. We included primary studies on parents of children with CA that studied psychoeducational interventions versus standard care. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration's tool.ResultsWe included six studies focusing on congenital heart defects (CHD). They described four different psychoeducational strategies. In four studies, statistically significant differences were found. For clinical practice, we considered three interventions as more feasible: the Educational program for mothers, with a group format of four sessions weekly; CHIP-Family intervention, which includes a parental group workshop followed by an individual follow-up booster session; and WeChat educational health program with an online format.ConclusionsThis review is the first that assesses the impact of psychoeducational interventions targeted at parents of children with CA on their QoL. The best approach to intervention is multiple group sessions. Two essential strategies were to give support material, enabling parents to review, and the possibility of an online program application, increasing accessibility. However, because all included studies focus on CHD, generalizations should be made carefully. These findings are crucial to guide future research to promote and improve comprehensive and structured support for families and integrate them into daily practice.

Abstract
Background: Digital clinical tools are a new technology that can be used in the screening or diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), notwithstanding the crucial role of polysomnography, the gold standard.Objective: This study aimed to identify, gather, and analyze the most accurate digital tools and smartphone-based health platforms used for OSA screening or diagnosis in the adult population. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies evaluating the validity of digital tools in OSA screening or diagnosis until November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were used as discrimination measures.Results: We retrieved 1714 articles, 41 (2.39%) of which were included in the study. From these 41 articles, we found 7 (17%) smartphone-based tools, 10 (24%) wearables, 11 (27%) bed or mattress sensors, 5 (12%) nasal airflow devices, and 8 (20%) other sensors that did not fit the previous categories. Only 8 (20%) of the 41 studies performed external validation of the developed tool. Of these, the highest reported values for AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.99, 96%, and 92%, respectively, for a clinical cutoff of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI)& GE;30. These values correspond to a noncontact audio recorder that records sleep sounds, which are then analyzed by a deep learning technique that automatically detects sleep apnea events, calculates the AHI, and identifies OSA. Looking at the studies that only internally validated their models, the work that reported the highest accuracy measures showed AUC, sensitivity, and specificity values of 1.00, 100%, and 96%, respectively, for a clinical cutoff AHI & GE;30. It uses the Sonomat-a foam mattress that, aside from recording breath sounds, has pressure sensors that generate voltage when deformed, thus detecting respiratory movements, and uses it to classify OSA events.Conclusions: These clinical tools presented promising results with high discrimination measures (best results reached AUC>0.99). However, there is still a need for quality studies comparing the developed tools with the gold standard and validating them in external populations and other environments before they can be used in clinical settings.