REM Atonia Index Cutoffs for REM Sleep Without Atonia: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Adult Diagnostic Performance

Clicks: 13
ID: 332982
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #228 of 243 articles by views in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 243 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Study Objectives To synthesize evidence on REM Atonia Index (RAI) thresholds and reference values, quantify adult diagnostic performance for REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD), and distinguish diagnostic cutoffs from physiological reference limits and pediatric values. Methods: We conducted a focused systematic review of studies using automated RAI, rescreening studies from a previous review and updating PubMed/MEDLINE through July 27, 2026. Adult diagnostic accuracy was synthesized with a bivariate binomial-normal random-effects model. Continuous RAI differences were pooled as raw mean differences. Normative adult and pediatric evidence was synthesized separately because these represented different estimands. The review was retrospectively registered in OSF Registries on August 20, 2026 (https://osf.io/v3kqa). Results Thirty unique studies were included. Eight adult studies contributed to the diagnostic-accuracy meta-analysis; thresholds ranged from 0.80 to 0.90. Pooled sensitivity was 0.850 (95% CI, 0.766–0.908) and specificity 0.895 (95% CI, 0.814–0.944). Eight studies contributed continuous data; RAI was lower in RBD by a pooled mean difference of −0.263 (95% CI, −0.335 to −0.190). Only two methodologically non-equivalent adult studies provided physiological reference limits, 0.85 and 0.91, precluding pooling. Pediatric evidence supported age-conditioned interpretation. Conclusions Adult chin-EMG RAI shows good overall discrimination of established RBD, but current evidence does not support a universal numerical boundary for REM sleep without atonia. Evidence defining physiological reference limits is substantially less developed than diagnostic evidence, and normal RAI varies with age. RAI should therefore be reported continuously, with thresholds interpreted according to their intended diagnostic or physiological purpose.
Reference Key
openalex_W7222983722 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Maria Paola Mogavero, Giuseppe Lanza, Amedeo Antoci, Michela Figorilli, Patrizia Congiu, Federico Meloni, Monica Puligheddu, Oliviero Bruni, Carlos Hugh Schenck, Raffaele Ferri
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/sleep/zsag271
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsag271
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.