Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 27;15(8):e0238083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238083

Perception of sleep duration in adult patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea

Ricardo L M Duarte 1,2, Bruno A Mendes 3, Tiago S Oliveira-e-Sá 3,4, Flavio J Magalhães-da-Silveira 1, David Gozal 5,*
Editor: James Andrew Rowley6
PMCID: PMC7451567  PMID: 32853299

Abstract

Purpose

Discrepancies between subjective and objective measures of total sleep time (TST) are frequent among insomnia patients, but this issue remains scarcely investigated in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We aimed to evaluate if sleep perception is affected by the severity of OSA.

Methods

We performed a 3-month cross-sectional study of Brazilian adults undergoing overnight polysomnography (PSG). TST was objectively assessed from PSG and by a self-reported questionnaire (subjective measurement). Sleep perception index (SPI) was defined by the ratio of subjective and objective values. Diagnosis of OSA was based on an apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 5.0/h, being its severity classified according to AHI thresholds: 5.0–14.9/h (mild OSA), 15.0–29.9/h (moderate OSA), and ≥ 30.0/h (severe OSA).

Results

Overall, 727 patients were included (58.0% males). A significant difference was found in SPI between non-OSA and OSA groups (p = 0.014). Mean SPI values significantly decreased as the OSA severity increased: without OSA (100.1 ± 40.9%), mild OSA (95.1 ± 24.6%), moderate OSA (93.5 ± 25.2%), and severe OSA (90.6 ± 28.2%), p = 0.036. Using logistic regression, increasing SPI was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of presenting any OSA (p = 0.018), moderate/severe OSA (p = 0.019), and severe OSA (p = 0.028). However, insomnia was not considered as an independent variable for the presence of any OSA, moderate/severe OSA, and severe OSA (all p-values > 0.05).

Conclusion

In a clinical referral cohort, SPI significantly decreases with increasing OSA severity, but is not modified by the presence of insomnia symptoms.

Introduction

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an extremely prevalent disorder [1], characterized by repetitive complete or partial airflow limitation due to increases in upper airway resistance during sleep, leading to intermittent hypoxemia and sleep fragmentation [2]. These hallmark characteristics of OSA are associated with cardiovascular, metabolic, and neurocognitive morbidities [25]. Diagnosis and assessment of OSA severity are based on the overnight polysomnographic study and routinely rely on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), which consists of the sum of apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep. Although OSA is a frequent disease and is associated with high morbidity, it remains underdiagnosed [6, 7], especially due to the limited access, primarily in regions with scarce financial resources. Therefore, in adult individuals, portable home tests have quickly emerged as an alternative and effective method for the diagnosis of OSA, particularly in light of their reduced cost and wider availability when compared to full polysomnography (PSG) [8].

Another highly prevalent sleep disorder is chronic insomnia, and according to the definition used, insomnia rates can reach up to about 50% [911]. In general, the clinical diagnosis of insomnia is based on the presence of specific symptoms and their duration. Symptoms associated with chronic insomnia are difficulty in initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and waking up earlier than desired, with one or more of such symptoms being present for at least 3 months [911]. Patients suffering from insomnia are more likely to use sleep medications, in addition to reporting more fragmented sleep and fewer total hours of sleep than those without a diagnosis of insomnia [911].

A mismatch between subjective data (patient complaints) and objective measurements collected from PSG may be related to fragmented sleep, which is more frequently present among patients with chronic insomnia than in patients with OSA and/or in the general population [1222]. Among patients with insomnia, an overestimation of sleep latency and an underestimation of total sleep time (TST) are often observed [1221]. In contrast, patients with OSA appear to have relative preservation of sleep perception (SP), whereas SP is worse in insomnia [21].

However, among symptomatic individuals being referred to the sleep laboratory for suspected OSA, a large cluster of comorbid OSA-insomnia is present [2224], which may, therefore, change SP in OSA depending on the proportion of OSA-insomnia in the cohort. Studies focusing on SP concerning different levels of OSA severity are also scarce and available literature has focused on OSA as a dichotomous variable rather than explore the severity of OSA as a modifier. In the present study, we hypothesized that as OSA severity increases in clinically referred symptomatic patients, SP will be affected and that this effect may be independent of concurrent insomnia symptoms.

Materials and methods

Study design and patient selection

This cross-sectional study was carried out between December 2019 and February 2020. All participants were referred for sleep evaluation due to suspected sleep-disordered breathing by their attending physicians. Inclusion criteria consisted of individuals aged 18 years and older and with suspected OSA. Exclusion criteria were as follows: previously diagnosed OSA, use of home sleep studies for diagnosis, and incomplete clinical data concerning the absence of one or more of the following parameters: subjective analysis of TST, insomnia symptoms, use of sleeping medications, and/or Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Subsequently, eligible individuals who underwent PSG and were diagnosed with central sleep apnea or those whose PSG was technically inadequate were also excluded from analyses.

Ethics statement

The study protocol (#1.764.165) was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and was carried out by the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All participants gave written informed consent before any study procedure. The anonymity of each subject was strictly preserved.

Clinical data acquisition

On the evening of the PSG and after collecting the consent form, gender, age, body mass index (BMI), neck circumference (NC), ESS, self-reported comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and insomnia), and regular use of sleep medications were systematically collected by experienced sleep technicians. BMI was calculated by dividing the weight in kilograms by the square of the height in meters (kg/m2). NC (in cm) was measured using a flexible tape with all subjects in the upright sitting position, with the upper edge of the tape measure placed immediately below the laryngeal prominence and applied perpendicularly to the long axis of the neck. Subjective sleepiness was assessed using ESS, an 8-item questionnaire, with four-point scales [from zero to three] [25]. Score ≥ 11 points (final score from 0 to 24 points) was considered as excessive daytime somnolence [25].

Chronic insomnia was defined as present if a patient indicated one or more of the following complaints, which were investigated through a semi-structured interview immediately before PSG: difficulty falling asleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and/or waking up earlier than desired. Furthermore, these symptoms needed to occur at least 3 nights a week for ≥ 3 months and to be related to the presence of functional daytime impairments [26].

Overnight in-lab polysomnography

All sleep tests were conducted in a single-center: SleepLab—Laboratório de Estudo dos Distúrbios do Sono, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. All participants underwent an attended, in-lab full PSG (EMBLA® S7000, Embla Systems, Inc., Broomfield, CO, USA) consisting of the recording of electroencephalography, electrooculography, electromyography (chin and legs), electrocardiography, airflow, thoracic and abdominal impedance belts, oxygen saturation, microphone for snoring, and body position sensors. Polysomnographic data were scored manually following the latest 2012 American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines [27] by two board-certified sleep physicians, who were blind to the results of the estimated TST measurements.

Obstructive apneas were defined as a decrease of at least 90% of airflow from baseline with persistent respiratory effort, lasting at least 10 seconds [27]. Hypopneas were classified as a reduction in the respiratory signal ≥ 30% lasting ≥ 10 seconds that were associated with ≥ 3% oxygen desaturation or arousal [27]. The AHI was calculated as the combined number of apnea and hypopnea episodes per hour sleep. Polysomnographic diagnosis of OSA was based on AHI ≥ 5.0/h, being its severity classified according to AHI thresholds: ≥ 5.0/h as any OSA, ≥ 15.0/h as moderate/severe OSA, and ≥ 30.0/h as severe OSA.

Sleep perception index calculation

The next morning after PSG, all volunteers were asked to complete a questionnaire about their sleep study satisfaction and to estimate the subjective TST (min). (S1 File) Objective TST (min) was assessed from overnight PSG. Then, the sleep perception index (SPI) was calculated as the ratio between the subjective TST estimate and the corresponding objective TST measurement [28].

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (SPSS; version 21.0; Chicago, IL, USA). Results are summarized as mean ± standard deviation or as number and percentage for continuous and categorical variables; respectively. Comparisons between groups were performed using the chi-squared test for categorical variables, while continuous variables were assessed using Student’s t-test or univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Correlation was calculated through the Spearman’s coefficient (r). Binary logistic regression was used to predict the relationship between predictors (SPI, presence of insomnia complaints, regular use of sleep-promoting medications, and ESS) and a dependent variable (AHI ≥ 5.0 versus < 5.0/h, ≥ 15.0 versus < 15.0/h, or ≥ 30.0 versus < 30.0/h). Estimates from logistic regression tests were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with the respective 95% confidence interval (CI). Calibration was evaluated by Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-squared test, being p < 0.05 considered as poor calibration [29]. Statistical tests were two-tailed and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Of a total of 794 consecutive subjects referred for diagnostic PSG, 67 patients (8.4%) were subsequently excluded for the following reasons: 60 with incomplete clinical data, 5 tested with portable sleep studies, and 2 with previously diagnosed OSA. Therefore, a total of 727 adult individuals—including 422 males (58.0%) and 305 females (42.0%)—were considered eligible for further analyses. No PSG needed to be repeated.

Baseline patient characteristics are reported in Table 1. Overall, the mean age was 46.1 ± 16.2 years, mean BMI was 29.6 ± 5.9 kg/m2, and mean NC was 39.2 ± 4.5 cm. As OSA severity increased, there was a proportional increase in the percentage of male individuals, in addition to increases in age, BMI, NC, presence of hypertension and diabetes, and excessive daytime sleepiness (p < 0.001 for all variables; Table 1). As would be expected in light of the inclusion of individuals with a high OSA pretest probability, there was a high frequency of any OSA (83.5%), moderate/severe OSA (58.5%), and severe OSA (35.5%).

Table 1. Patient characteristics (n = 727).

Parameter Total (n = 727) Without OSA (n = 120) Mild OSA (n = 182) Moderate OSA (n = 167) Severe OSA (n = 258) p
Clinical data
 Male gender, % 422 (58.0) 35 (29.2) 94 (51.6) 104 (62.3) 189 (73.3) < 0.001
 Age, years 46.1 ± 16.2 36.1 ± 14.5 45.3 ± 15.4 46.6 ± 15.8 51.0 ± 15.5 < 0.001
 BMI, kg/m2 29.6 ± 5.9 26.9 ± 5.6 28.2 ± 5.6 30.1 ± 5.3 31.6 ± 6.0 < 0.001
 NC, cm 39.2 ± 4.5 35.9 ± 3.8 38.0 ± 3.8 39.5 ± 4.1 41.5 ± 4.1 < 0.001
 ESS ≥ 11 points, % 305 (42.0) 40 (33.3) 64 (35.2) 67 (40.1) 134 (51.9) < 0.001
 Hypertension, % 245 (33.7) 18 (15.0) 51 (28.0) 53 (31.7) 123 (47.7) < 0.001
 Diabetes mellitus, % 108 (14.9) 5 (4.2) 23 (12.6) 26 (15.6) 54 (20.9) < 0.001
 Insomnia, % 327 (45.0) 57 (47.5) 89 (48.9) 73 (43.7) 108 (41.9) 0.464
 Sleep medications, % 149 (20.5) 25 (20.8) 44 (24.2) 38 (22.8) 42 (16.3) 0.182
 Subjective TST, min 308.2 ± 97.3 303.8 ± 111.7 320.1 ± 96.0 316.2 ± 89.8 296.4 ± 94.8 0.055
Polysomnographic data
 Objective TST, min 334.8 ± 74.7 314.7 ± 80.9 339.6 ± 75.1 342.9 ± 65.7 335.5 ± 75.5 0.009
 Sleep efficiency, % 77.5 ± 37.3 73.2 ± 17.4 77.6 ± 15.9 83.3 ± 71.8 75.6 ± 16.0 0.097
 Arousal index, n/h 29.9 ± 23.7 6.7 ± 3.0 13.5 ± 4.5 24.1 ± 4.8 56.0 ± 20.3 < 0.001
 AHI, n/h 27.6 ± 25.4 2.1 ± 1.3 9.7 ± 3.0 21.2 ± 4.1 56.3 ± 20.5 < 0.001
 Mean SpO2, % 93.6 ± 2.3 95.2 ± 1.5 94.2 ± 1.7 93.8 ± 1.9 92.3 ± 2.5 < 0.001
 Lowest SpO2, % 82.5 ± 8.4 88.0 ± 7.4 85.0 ± 6.4 84.4 ± 5.2 77.1 ± 8.8 < 0.001
 ODI at 3%, n/h 19.0 ± 23.0 1.4 ± 1.6 5.3 ± 5.1 12.1 ± 7.4 41.6 ± 25.1 < 0.001

Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%). BMI: body-mass index; NC: neck circumference; ESS: Epworth Sleepiness Scale; TST: total sleep time; AHI: apnea/hypopnea index; SpO2: oxygen saturation; ODI: oxygen desaturation index. TST was objectively evaluated from PSG, while its subjective measure was filled out using a questionnaire. Polysomnographic diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was based on AHI thresholds: < 5.0/h (without OSA), 5.0–14.9/h (mild OSA), 15.0–29.9/h (moderate OSA), and ≥ 30.0/h (severe OSA).

Sleep perception

Fig 1 illustrates the scatterplots between TST (subjective and objective measurements), SPI, and AHI. There was a positive correlation between subjective and objective values of TST (p < 0.001). Conversely, neither subjective TST nor objective TST was significantly associated with AHI: p-values: 0.063 and 0.226, respectively. Additionally, SPI was negatively correlated with AHI (p = 0.006).

Fig 1. Scatterplot of Apnea/Hypopnea Index (AHI), subjective and objective Total Sleep Time (TST), and Sleep Perception Index (SPI) in 727 individuals.

Fig 1

Subjective TST value was self-reported by participants, while objective TST value was measured from full polysomnography. SPI was defined as the ratio between the subjective and objective TST. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the strength of association between two variables.

As reported in Fig 2, mean SPI measurements were statistically different across OSA severity categories based on AHI: < 5.0/h, 5.0–14.9/h, 15.0–29.9/h, and ≥ 30.0/h; p = 0.036. Conversely, frequency of insomnia complaints was similar in patients classified according to OSA severity categories based on AHI thresholds: < 5.0/h (47.5%), 5.0–14.9/h (48.9%), 15.0–29.9/h (43.7%), and ≥ 30.0/h (41.9%), p = 0.464.

Fig 2. Sleep Perception Index (SPI) and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity.

Fig 2

SPI measurements were statistically different across categories of OSA severities: < 5.0/h (without OSA), 5.0–14.9/h (mild OSA), 15.0–29.9/h (moderate OSA), and ≥ 30.0/h (severe OSA). SPI was defined as the ratio between the subjective and objective total sleep time. Values were reported as mean ± standard deviation.

As shown in Fig 3, mean SPI values were statistically different according to three AHI cut-off points: < 5.0/h versus ≥ 5.0/h (p = 0.014); < 15.0/h versus ≥ 15.0/h (p = 0.018); and < 30.0/h versus ≥ 30.0/h (p = 0.026). On the other hand, frequency of insomnia symptoms was similar in patients classified according to these AHI cut-off points: < 5.0/h (47.5%) versus ≥ 5.0/h (44.5%), p = 0.549; < 15.0/h (48.3%) versus ≥ 15.0/h (42.6%), p = 0.131; and < 30.0/h (46.7%) versus ≥ 30.0/h (41.9%), p = 0.214.

Fig 3. Sleep Perception Index (SPI) and Apnea/Hypopnea Index (AHI) thresholds.

Fig 3

SPI measurements were statistically different according to three AHI thresholds: < 5.0/h versus ≥ 5.0/h, < 15.0/h versus ≥ 15.0/h, and < 30.0 versus ≥ 30.0/h. SPI was defined as the ratio between the subjective and objective total sleep time. Values were shown as mean ± standard deviation.

Of note, only males showed a statistically significant reduction in mean SPI values as the severity of OSA increased: SPI ranged from 109.3 ± 50.5% (without OSA) to 88.1 ± 26.6% (severe OSA), p < 0.001. In females, however, SPI was similar concerning increasing AHI-based categories, ranging from 96.3 ± 36.0% (without OSA) to 97.8 ± 31.4% (severe OSA), p = 0.935.

Binary logistic regression

Table 2 shows the logistic regression that was performed to verify the effects of SPI, insomnia symptoms, regular use of sleep-promoting medications, and ESS on the likelihood of individuals having any OSA, moderate/severe OSA, and severe OSA. Increasing SPI was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of presenting any OSA (OR: 0.992 [95% CI: 0.986–0.999]; p = 0.018), moderate/severe OSA (OR: 0.994 [95% CI: 0.988–0.999]; p = 0.019), and severe OSA (OR: 0.994 [95% CI 0.988–0.999]; p = 0.028). Increasing the ESS score was associated with a higher probability of exhibiting moderate/severe OSA (p = 0.010) and severe OSA (p < 0.001). Also, neither the presence of insomnia nor the regular use of sleep-promoting medications was considered as an independent variable for the presence of any OSA, moderate/severe OSA, and severe OSA (all p-values > 0.05).

Table 2. Binary logistic regression of covariates according to AHI thresholds (n = 727).

β SE Wald df p-value OR (95% CI)
AHI5.0/h
 Sleep perception index -0.008 0.003 5.583 1 0.018 0.992 (0.986–0.999)
 Insomnia complaints -0.125 0.212 0.349 1 0.555 0.882 (0.583–1.336)
 Sleep medications use 0.085 0.261 0.106 1 0.745 1.089 (0.653–1.816)
 ESS score 0.036 0.021 2.960 1 0.085 1.037 (0.995–1.081)
AHI15.0/h
 Sleep perception index -0.006 0.003 5.500 1 0.019 0.994 (0.988–0.999)
 Insomnia complaints -0.213 0.161 1.753 1 0.185 0.808 (0.589–1.108)
 Sleep medications use -0.087 0.198 0.192 1 0.661 0.917 (0.623–1.351)
 ESS score 0.041 0.016 6.656 1 0.010 1.042 (1.010–1.074)
AHI30.0/h
 Sleep perception index -0.006 0.003 4.854 1 0.028 0.994 (0.988–0.999)
 Insomnia complaints -0.176 0.168 1.093 1 0.296 0.839 (0.603–1.166)
 Sleep medications use -0.193 0.214 0.812 1 0.368 0.825 (0.542–1.254)
 ESS score 0.060 0.016 13.448 1 < 0.001 1.062 (1.028–1.097)

AHI: apnea/hypopnea index; ESS: Epworth Sleepiness Scale, β: regression coefficient, SE: standard error, df: degrees of freedom for the Wald test, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval. Sleep perception index was defined as the ratio between the subjective and objective total sleep time. The logistic model regression model showed adequate calibration, which was accessed by Hosmer–Lemeshow test: any OSA (AHI ≥ 5.0/h): 8.987 (p = 0.343); moderate/severe OSA (AHI ≥ 15.0/h): 14.572 (p = 0.068); and severe OSA (AHI ≥ 30.0/h): 4.754 (p = 0.783).

Discussion

The main findings of our study were that SPI values progressively decreased with increasing severity of OSA, indicating that individuals with more severe forms of OSA tend to have a worse SP. It is therefore likely that the increasing severity of OSA manifesting both as more severe intermittent hypoxemia (increased oxygen desaturation index) and sleep fragmentation (increased arousal index) may induce progressive sleep satisfaction reductions [21, 3032]. We further explore whether concurrent insomnia-related symptoms could have affected our findings since individuals with insomnia noticeably have a lower SPI when compared with OSA patients or controls [1220]. As the frequency of insomnia complaints was similar across the AHI categorical thresholds (5.0/h, 15.0/h, and 30.0/h), the presence or absence of insomnia is highly unlikely to have biased our findings. Moreover, this parameter was not considered as an independent variable for the diagnosis of OSA, regardless of its severity (all p-values > 0.05).

Unlike our findings, a previous study that included 248 individuals (42% without OSA and 58% with OSA) reported no differences in the objective and subjective measures of TST in patients diagnosed with OSA [20]. However, this study defined only one AHI threshold at 5.0/h to categorize patients with or without OSA, while we expanded the analysis to a larger cohort of subjects and applied the three AHI thresholds most commonly used to assess OSA severity. This approach revealed that SP was significantly reduced with the concomitant increase in OSA severity, but found no significant association with the frequency of comorbid OSA-insomnia.

Another study postulated that compared with patients diagnosed with mild OSA, those diagnosed with severe OSA would exhibit greater sleep fragmentation, which in turn could lead to a worse SP [32]. This study enrolled 50 OSA patients which included 30 with normal SP and 20 with abnormal SP, i.e., perceived TST < 80% of TST measured in PSG [32]. No statistically significant difference in SP emerged based on different OSA severities: 0.75 ± 0.21 (mild OSA), 0.89 ± 0.18 (moderate OSA), and 0.82 ± 0.20 (severe OSA); p = 0.19 (32). However, the small size sample, the use of the 2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine scoring criteria, and the absence of controls (subjects without OSA) are all substantial limitations that may account for the negative findings [32].

In our study, men, but not women, showed a statistically significant reduction in mean SPI measurements as the severity of OSA increased. This finding, although intriguing, should be extrapolated to the general population with caution, since men are more likely to suffer OSA than women, while women typically are more likely to present with increased insomnia symptoms when compared to men. Moreover, other covariates, such as age and BMI, should also be concurrently evaluated to establish whether there are SP differences between men and women, or whether these are only the result of the enrolled population.

Limitations and strengths

Our study had some limitations that deserve mention. All participants were referred to a single sleep laboratory, which may limit the reproducibility and generalization of our findings. Other measures of SP commonly evaluated mainly in individuals suffering from insomnia, such as sleep latency and awakenings, were not included, but since the prevalence of insomnia was similar across OSA severity groups, the impact of such omission should be minimal if any. Another possible limitation was that the objective measurement of TST was extracted exclusively from a single night in the sleep laboratory; therefore, night-to-night variability or the effects of the first night could not be completely excluded. However, the inclusion of a relatively robust sample of consecutive adult individuals who underwent full in-lab PSGs is an obvious strength of the present study. Moreover, both physicians responsible for PSG reports were blinded to the subjective TST estimate values.

Conclusions

In symptomatic adults who are clinically referred to a sleep laboratory, SPI was lower in those subjects with OSA diagnosis. Furthermore, among those diagnosed with OSA, SPI decreased according to the severity of OSA increased, and this relationship was not influenced by the presence of clinical symptoms of insomnia.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Benjafield AV, Ayas NT, Eastwood PR, Heinzer R, Ip MSM, Morrell MJ, et al. Estimation of the global prevalence and burden of obstructive sleep apnoea: a literature-based analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(8):687–98. Epub 2019 Jul 9. 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30198-5 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kapur VK, Auckley DH, Chowdhuri S, Kuhlmann DC, Mehra R, Ramar K, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Testing for Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(3):479–504. 10.5664/jcsm.6506 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mokhlesi B, Ham SA, Gozal D. The effect of sex and age on the comorbidity burden of OSA: an observational analysis from a large nationwide US health claims database. Eur Respir J. 2016;47(4):1162–9. Epub 2016 Jan 21. 10.1183/13993003.01618-2015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Martínez Cerón E, Casitas Mateos R, García-Río F. Sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome and type 2 diabetes. A reciprocal relationship? Arch Bronconeumol. 2015;51(3):128–39. Epub 2014 Aug 18. 10.1016/j.arbres.2014.06.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kendzerska T, Gershon AS, Hawker G, Leung RS, Tomlinson G. Obstructive sleep apnea and risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: a decade-long historical cohort study. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2):e1001599 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001599 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kapur V, Strohl KP, Redline S, Iber C, O’Connor G, Nieto J. Underdiagnosis of sleep apnea syndrome in U.S. communities. Sleep Breath. 2002;6(2):49–54. 10.1007/s11325-002-0049-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fuhrman C, Fleury B, Nguyên XL, Delmas MC. Symptoms of sleep apnea syndrome: high prevalence and underdiagnosis in the French population. Sleep Med. 2012;13(7):852–8. Epub 2012 Jun 15. 10.1016/j.sleep.2012.04.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Collop NA, Anderson WM, Boehlecke B, Claman D, Goldberg R, Gottlieb DJ, et al. Clinical guidelines for the use of unattended portable monitors in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adult patients. Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. J Clin Sleep Med. 2007;3(7):737–47. ;. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ohayon MM. Epidemiology of insomnia: what we know and what we still need to learn. Sleep Med Rev. 2002;6(2):97–111. 10.1053/smrv.2002.0186 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chung KF. Insomnia subtypes and their relationships to daytime sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Respiration. 2005;72(5):460–5. 10.1159/000087668 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Krell SB, Kapur VK. Insomnia complaints in patients evaluated for obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. 2005;9(3):104–10. 10.1007/s11325-005-0026-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bianchi MT, Williams KL, McKinney S, Ellenbogen JM. The subjective-objective mismatch in sleep perception among those with insomnia and sleep apnea. J Sleep Res. 2013;22(5):557–68. Epub 2013 Mar 25. 10.1111/jsr.12046 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fernandez-Mendoza J, Calhoun SL, Bixler EO, Karataraki M, Liao D, Vela-Bueno A, et al. Sleep misperception and chronic insomnia in the general population: role of objective sleep duration and psychological profiles. Psychosom Med. 2011;73(1):88–97. Epub 2010 Oct 26. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181fe365a ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Manconi M, Ferri R, Sagrada C, Punjabi NM, Tettamanzi E, Zucconi M, et al. Measuring the error in sleep estimation in normal subjects and in patients with insomnia. J Sleep Res. 2010;19(3):478–86. Epub 2010 Feb 10. 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2009.00801.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Means MK, Edinger JD, Glenn DM, Fins AI. Accuracy of sleep perceptions among insomnia sufferers and normal sleepers. Sleep Med. 2003;4(4):285–96. 10.1016/s1389-9457(03)00057-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Castillo J, Goparaju B, Bianchi MT. Sleep-wake misperception in sleep apnea patients undergoing diagnostic versus titration polysomnography. J Psychosom Res. 2014;76(5):361–7. Epub 2014 Mar 22. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.03.001 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Choi SJ, Suh S, Ong J, Joo EY. Sleep Misperception in Chronic Insomnia Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Implications for Clinical Assessment. J Clin Sleep Med. 2016;12(11):1517–25. 10.5664/jcsm.6280 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Trajanovic NN, Radivojevic V, Kaushansky Y, Shapiro CM. Positive sleep state misperception—a new concept of sleep misperception. Sleep Med. 2007;8(2):111–8. Epub 2007 Feb 1. 10.1016/j.sleep.2006.08.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schinkelshoek MS, de Wit K, Bruggink V, Fronczek R, Lammers GJ. Daytime sleep state misperception in a tertiary sleep centre population. Sleep Med. 2020;69:78–84. Epub 2020 Jan 10. 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.12.026 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Laranjeira CM, Barbosa ERF, Rabahi MF. Is subjective sleep evaluation a good predictor for obstructive sleep apnea? Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018;73:e355 10.6061/clinics/2018/e355 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pinto LR Jr, Pinto MC, Goulart LI, Truksinas E, Rossi MV, Morin CM, et al. Sleep perception in insomniacs, sleep-disordered breathing patients, and healthy volunteers—an important biologic parameter of sleep. Sleep Med. 2009;10(8):865–8. Epub 2009 Jan 28. 10.1016/j.sleep.2008.06.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lubetkin EI, Jia H. Burden of disease due to sleep duration and sleep problems in the elderly. Sleep Health. 2018;4(2):182–187. Epub 2018 Jan 17. 10.1016/j.sleh.2017.11.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Eysteinsdottir B, Gislason T, Pack AI, Benediktsdottir B, Arnardottir ES, Kuna ST, et al. Insomnia complaints in lean patients with obstructive sleep apnea negatively affect positive airway pressure treatment adherence. J Sleep Res. 2017;26(2):159–165. Epub 2016 Dec 15. 10.1111/jsr.12482 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pien GW, Ye L, Keenan BT, Maislin G, Björnsdóttir E, Arnardottir ES, et al. Changing Faces of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Treatment Effects by Cluster Designation in the Icelandic Sleep Apnea Cohort. Sleep. 2018;41(3):zsx201 10.1093/sleep/zsx201 ; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep. 1991;14(6):540–5. 10.1093/sleep/14.6.540 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest. 2014;146(5):1387–1394. 10.1378/chest.14-0970 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Berry RB, Budhiraja R, Gottlieb DJ, Gozal D, Iber C, Kapur VK, et al. Rules for scoring respiratory events in sleep: update of the 2007 AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events. Deliberations of the Sleep Apnea Definitions Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. J Clin Sleep Med. 2012;8(5):597–619. 10.5664/jcsm.2172 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Edinger JD, Fins AI. The distribution and clinical significance of sleep time misperceptions among insomniacs. Sleep. 1995;18(4):232–9. 10.1093/sleep/18.4.232 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128–38. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ohayon MM, Chen MC, Bixler E, Dauvilliers Y, Gozal D, Plazzi G, et al. A provisional tool for the measurement of sleep satisfaction. Sleep Health. 2018;4(1):6–12. Epub 2017 Dec 18. 10.1016/j.sleh.2017.11.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ohayon MM, Paskow M, Roach A, Filer C, Hillygus DS, Chen MC, et al. The National Sleep Foundation’s Sleep Satisfaction Tool. Sleep Health. 2019;5(1):5–11. Epub 2018 Oct 19. 10.1016/j.sleh.2018.10.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nam H, Lim JS, Kim JS, Lee KJ, Koo DL, Lee C. Sleep Perception in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Study Using Polysomnography and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test. J Clin Neurol. 2016;12(2):230–5. 10.3988/jcn.2016.12.2.230 ;. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

James Andrew Rowley

14 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-18917

Perception of sleep duration in adult patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gozal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The academic editor agrees with the reviewers comments and hopes that the authors can reply to them in detail.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

James Andrew Rowley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the questionnaire about their sleep study satisfaction used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if the questionnaire it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Discrepancies between subjective and objective measures of total sleep time are frequent among insomnia patients, but this issue remains scarcely investigated in OSA. The authors attempted to evaluate if sleep perception is affected by the severity of OSA. They performed a 3-month cross-sectional study of Brazilian adults undergoing PSG. Objective sleep time was assessed from PSG and subjective sleep time by a self-reported questionnaire. Sleep perception index was defined by the ratio of subjective and objective values.Overall, 727 patients were included (58.0% males). A significant difference was found in SPI between non-OSA and OSA groups, and SPI significantly decreases with increasing OSA severity.

This was a very interesting and well-written paper or an important topic in sleep medicine. My comments are minor in nature. For example, in the 2nd paragraph of Introduction, the authors should specify that this is "chronic" insomnia (i.e. > 3 mos). Acute insomnia is quite different in nature and may be confusing to some readers. Additionally, on line 190, it should say "TST" not TTS. Otherwise, no major issues, the authors do a great job of listing Limitations.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting paper that reflects a phenomenon often observed in clinical practice.

Introduction:

- Would also mention the role of HSATs in OSA diagnosis.

- Say "patients with insomnia" rather than "insomniacs"

- Appreciate that the hypothesis is clearly stated

Methods:

- Please clarify what is meant by "incomplete clinical data" as an exclusion criterion

- Why was information about medical comorbidities collected by self-report rather than by chart review?

- Were there particularly categories of "sleep medications" that were inquired about for this study? Information collected on duration of medication use?

- Please explain why GOAL was used as the screening questionnaire (rather than other, more commonly encountered questionnaires)

Results:

- Under "Sleep Perception" - please define TTS

- Why was the discriminatory ability of the ESS and GOAL questionnaire determined? This does not add new information to the literature, and was not stated as a hypothesis/aim for the current study.

Discussion:

- Please clarify - are you defining sleep fragmentation increased oxygen desaturation index and arousal index? If so, please cite references for both components of this definition.

- The paragraphs about the GOAL questionnaire and ESS are unrelated to the rest of the manuscript and stated hypothesis/aim; suggest to remove these paragraphs.

- Please include further discussion about the gender discrepancies and SPI mentioned in the Results section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Daniel A. Barone, MD

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 27;15(8):e0238083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238083.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jul 2020

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and acknowledge the contributions of such critiques to improvements in the manuscript. The detailed answer to all the pertinent questions raised by the Reviewers follows below.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Discrepancies between subjective and objective measures of total sleep time are frequent among insomnia patients, but this issue remains scarcely investigated in OSA. The authors attempted to evaluate if sleep perception is affected by the severity of OSA. They performed a 3-month cross-sectional study of Brazilian adults undergoing PSG. Objective sleep time was assessed from PSG and subjective sleep time by a self-reported questionnaire. Sleep perception index was defined by the ratio of subjective and objective values. Overall, 727 patients were included (58.0% males). A significant difference was found in SPI between non-OSA and OSA groups, and SPI significantly decreases with increasing OSA severity.

This was a very interesting and well-written paper or an important topic in sleep medicine. My comments are minor in nature.

For example, in the 2nd paragraph of Introduction, the authors should specify that this is "chronic" insomnia (i.e. > 3 mos). Acute insomnia is quite different in nature and may be confusing to some readers.

Following the Reviewer's comment, we now use the term chronic insomnia to better characterize this disorder.

Additionally, on line 190, it should say "TST" not TTS. Otherwise, no major issues, the authors do a great job of listing Limitations.

We apologize for the oversight which is now corrected.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting paper that reflects a phenomenon often observed in clinical practice.

Introduction:

- Would also mention the role of HSATs in OSA diagnosis.

As suggested by the Reviewer, the introduction was rewritten mentioning the role of home sleep studies in the diagnosis of OSA.

- Say "patients with insomnia" rather than "insomniacs"

Accordingly, the term “insomniacs” was has been replaced by “patients with insomnia”.

- Appreciate that the hypothesis is clearly stated

Methods:

- Please clarify what is meant by "incomplete clinical data" as an exclusion criterion

The “incomplete clinical data” mention refers to the absence of one or more of the following clinical parameters of interest to the study: subjective analysis of total sleep time, insomnia symptoms, use of sleeping medications, and/or Epworth Sleepiness Scale. An explanation has now been included in the Methods section.

- Why was information about medical comorbidities collected by self-report rather than by chart review?

Comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and insomnia symptoms) were systematically collected immediately before the polysomnography was performed, thus it was not necessary to resort to medical record review.

- Were there particularly categories of "sleep medications" that were inquired about for this study? Information collected on duration of medication use?

Unfortunately, data related to the different types of sleeping medications were not systematically collected. Instead, the use of sleeping pills was categorically answered as yes or no. However, it should be emphasized that only the regular/daily use of these drugs was considered to be a positive response. This observation on the regular use of these drugs has now been placed in the revised version of the manuscript.

- Please explain why GOAL was used as the screening questionnaire (rather than other, more commonly encountered questionnaires)

The GOAL questionnaire is a simplified instrument for OSA screening in adults, which was recently published (2020), possibly explaining why it is less cited than other instruments with a similar purpose. Notwithstanding, we agree with the Reviewer that its use is outside the main scope of the study, justifying removal.

Results:

- Under "Sleep Perception" - please define TTS

We apologize for the spelling mistake being the correct term (TST) inserted in the manuscript.

- Why was the discriminatory ability of the ESS and GOAL questionnaire determined? This does not add new information to the literature, and was not stated as a hypothesis/aim for the current study.

As explained above and according to the Reviewer's comment, we removed the data regarding the discriminatory power of the GOAL and ESS, since these data are outside the main objectives of the study.

Discussion:

- Please clarify - are you defining sleep fragmentation increased oxygen desaturation index and arousal index? If so, please cite references for both components of this definition.

We agree with the Reviewer that the paragraph deserves further clarification. We rewrote the text explaining that intermittent hypoxemia is related to the oxygen desaturation index, while sleep fragmentation is related to the arousal index.

- The paragraphs about the GOAL questionnaire and ESS are unrelated to the rest of the manuscript and stated hypothesis/aim; suggest to remove these paragraphs.

As mentioned above, these paragraphs have been removed from the revised manuscript.

- Please include further discussion about the gender discrepancies and SPI mentioned in the Results section.

As insightfully suggested by the Reviewer, we have written a new paragraph with possible gender-related discrepancies about sleep perception.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (dg).docx

Decision Letter 1

James Andrew Rowley

10 Aug 2020

Perception of sleep duration in adult patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea

PONE-D-20-18917R1

Dear Dr. Gozal,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

James Andrew Rowley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors did a fine job and have addressed all my (minor) concerns. From my perspective, the paper is ready to be published.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript revision.

The authors have addressed all initially stated concerns in this revision.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Daniel A Barone

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

James Andrew Rowley

17 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-18917R1

Perception of sleep duration in adult patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea

Dear Dr. Gozal:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. James Andrew Rowley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (dg).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES