Recommendations For PSG and MSLT Use:

Recommendations Against PSG Use:

Document Overview

Design and created by Guideline Central in participation with the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

Non-Respiratory Indications for Polysomnography and Multiple Sleep Latency Testing for Children

American Academy of Sleep Medicine

Publication Date: Nov 1, 2012

Page Last Updated: May 5, 2026

American Academy of Sleep Medicine Grading System

AASM Levels of Recommendations
Term	Definition
STANDARD	This is a generally accepted patient-care strategy that reflects a high degree of clinical certainty and generally implies the use of level 1 evidence or overwhelming level 2 evidence.
GUIDELINE	This is a patient-care strategy that reflects a moderate degree of clinical certainty and implies the use of level 2 evidence or a consensus of level 3 evidence.
OPTION	This is a patient-care strategy that reflects uncertain clinical use and implies either inconclusive or conflicting evidence or conflicting expert opinion

Levels of Evidence
Level	Description
1	Evidence provided by a prospective study in a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using a reference (gold) standard for case definition, where test is applied in a blinded fashion, and enabling the assessment of appropriate test of diagnostic accuracy. All persons undergoing the diagnostic test have the presence or absence of the disease determined. Level I studies are judged to have a low risk of bias.
2	Evidence provided by a prospective study of a narrow spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, or a well-designed retrospective study of a broad spectrum of persons with an established condition (by “gold standard”) compared to a broad spectrum of controls, where test is applied in a blinded evaluation, and enabling the assessment of appropriate tests of diagnostic accuracy. Level II studies are judged to have a moderate risk of bias.
3	Evidence provided by a retrospective study where either person with the established condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum, and where the reference standard, if not objective, is applied by someone other than the person that performed (interpreted) the test. Level III studies are judged to have a moderate to high risk of bias.
4	Any study design where test is not applied in an independent evaluation or evidence is provided by expert opinion alone or in descriptive case series without controls. There is no blinding or there may be inadequate blinding. The spectrum of persons tested may be broad or narrow. Level IV studies are judged to have a very high risk of bias.

Document Overview

Document Title: Non-Respiratory Indications for Polysomnography and Multiple Sleep Latency Testing for Children

Authoring Society: American Academy of Sleep Medicine

Document Publication Date: Nov 1, 2012

Page Last Reviewed/Updated: May 5, 2026

Document Type: Guideline

Country of Publication: United States

Full Text Freely Available: Yes

Full Text Guideline: aasm.org/resources/practiceparameters/pediatricpolysomnographymslt.pdf

Source Citation: Sleep, Volume 35, Issue 11, 1 November 2012, Pages 1467–1473,
https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.2190

Document Scope, Criteria, and Use Cases

Document Objectives: In this report, we present practice parameters for the indications of polysomnography and the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) in the assessment of non-respiratory sleep disorders in children.

Scope: Assessment and Screening, Diagnosis, Management

Diseases/Conditions (MeSH)

D017286 - Polysomnography

Keywords: polysomnography

Target Patient Population: Children with non-respiratory sleep disorders

Inclusion Criteria: Female, Male, Adolescent, Child

Health Care Settings: Ambulatory, Outpatient

Intended Users: Nurse, Nurse Practitioner, Physician, Physician Assistant

Recommendation Development Processes & Methodology

Supplemental Methodology Resources: Systematic Review Document Evidence Tables

Number of Source Documents: 77

Includes peer/external review process?: Yes

Includes public comment process?: No

Methodologist involvement?: Yes

Patient involvement?: No

Includes multi-disciplinary group?: Yes

Includes systematic review?: Yes

Grades quality of strength of evidence?: Yes

Grades quality of strength of recommendation?: Yes

Discloses funding source?: No

Discloses conflicts of interest?: No

Includes benefits/harms analysis with recommendations?: No