Data from: Agreement between electronic and paper Epworth Sleepiness Scale responses in obstructive sleep apnoea: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial undertaken in a specialised tertiary care clinic

Objectives: Originally developed as a paper questionnaire, the electronic Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is widely used in sleep clinics and sleep population research. Despite potential differences between computer-based and conventional questionnaire delivery, studies have not evaluated the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the ESS. Given the widespread use of the ESS, a bias between results would present considerable data concerns. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine agreement between electronic and paper ESS responses in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Design: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR: ACTRN12611000847910). Setting: Data were collected in a tertiary sleep research laboratory located in Sydney, Australia. Participants: Data were analysed from 112 adult OSA patients. Measurements: Patients were given the English version of the ESS as part of a battery of sleep laboratory questionnaires. They completed electronic and subsequently paper ESS questionnaires on the same day. Results: We found no significant difference between electronic and paper ESS questionnaires (mean = 0.1, SD = 2.1, 95% CI [-0.3, 0.5], p = .57) or heteroscedasticity. There was no evidence of bias along the range of the measure. 95% limits of agreement at 4.3 and -4.1 were comparable with previous data. Conclusions: We found no evidence of bias between electronic and paper ESS questionnaires in this sample of OSA patients, as the two formats displayed sufficient agreement to be clinically comparable. Regardless of severity, patients reported the same level of daytime sleepiness with the same level of accuracy across both measures.研究目的：爱泼沃斯嗜睡量表（Epworth Sleepiness Scale, ESS）最初以纸质问卷形式开发，如今其电子版本已广泛应用于睡眠门诊与睡眠人群研究。尽管基于计算机的问卷发放方式与传统纸质问卷可能存在差异，但目前尚无研究评估电子版与纸质版ESS的一致性。鉴于ESS的广泛应用，若两种版本的结果存在偏倚，将引发严重的数据质量隐患。因此，本研究旨在探讨阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停（obstructive sleep apnoea, OSA）患者群体中，电子版与纸质版ESS应答结果的一致性。 研究设计：本研究对一项随机对照试验（澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册中心编号：ACTRN12611000847910）的基线数据进行了二次分析。 研究场景：数据采集于澳大利亚悉尼的一所三级睡眠研究实验室。 研究对象：本研究共纳入112名成年OSA患者并对其数据展开分析。 测量方案：作为睡眠实验室成套问卷的一部分，受试者需完成英文版本的ESS。所有受试者于同日先后完成电子版与纸质版ESS问卷。 研究结果：电子版与纸质版ESS问卷的得分无显著差异（均值差=0.1，标准差=2.1，95%置信区间[-0.3, 0.5]，p=0.57），且未发现异方差性问题。在量表的全分值范围内均未观察到偏倚迹象。本次研究得到的95%一致性界限为4.3与-4.1，与既往研究数据具有可比性。 研究结论：在本次纳入的OSA患者样本中，电子版与纸质版ESS问卷之间未发现偏倚。两种问卷形式具备足够的一致性，可在临床场景中互换使用。无论病情严重程度如何，两种测量方式下受试者报告的日间嗜睡程度均一致，且测量准确度相当。