Evidence Hub

Risk of obstructive sleep apnea among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Spiteri G, Arshad M, Rita CM, Ruiu R, Porru S, Verlato G

Scientific reports, 2026

9 participants

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a very common but underdiagnosed health disorder. OSA-derived cognitive disorders could increase the risk of work-related injuries among healthcare workers (HW), representing a major threat both to them and their patients. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relevance of OSA in the healthcare sector. Studies reporting the prevalence of either high risk of OSA (HRO) or diagnosed OSA, assessed respectively by structured questionnaires or validated diagnostic tools among healthcare workers, published between 2000 and 2026 in PubMed and Scopus were included. A meta-analysis of the included papers was performed using random-effects models to estimate the pooled prevalence. Variability was evaluated by the heterogeneity test and the I² statistic. Statistical significance was set at p < 5%. Of the 211 articles identified, 9 with 8473 participants were included in the meta-analysis. OSA risk was assessed by the Berlin (BQ) and STOP-BANG questionnaires (SBQ) in 6 and 3 studies, respectively. Prevalence estimates for HRO were highly heterogeneous (I-squared = 99.1%), ranging from 7 to 37%. The pooled estimate was 23% (95% CI 13-33%). Prevalence estimates were significantly affected by geographic area, being higher in Europe and the Middle East than in South-East Asia and the US (p < 0.01), but neither by response rate nor by the questionnaire used. The prevalence of OSA diagnosis was instrumentally obtained…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 9 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free