ReviewLung2012
Emerging therapies for obstructive sleep apnea.
Review in Lung, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of level 3 portable sleep tests versus level 1 polysomnography for sleep-disordered breathing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014Pooled it
- Internal nasal dilator in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2019Article
- Efficacy of daytime transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the genioglossus muscle in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: short report.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent disorder often associated with daytime sleepiness, cognitive dysfunction, and adverse cardiovascular consequences. Available therapies are limited by either lack of long-term adherence or low response rates. Two emerging therapies hold promise in providing alternatives to patients with OSA. The first stems from the importance of the upper-airway dilator muscles in maintaining pharyngeal stability. Electrical stimulation of the genioglossus muscle improves both upper-airway diameter and ameliorates pharyngeal obstruction. The results of phase I and II clinical trials hold promise, but the reported improvements in the apnea-hypopnea index vary between subjects and concerns about long-term safety await long-term studies. The second technology relies on creating an increased expiratory nasal resistance via a bidirectional valve designed to be worn just inside the nostrils. Initial findings of clinical trials suggest reduction in severity of sleep apnea and subjective daytime sleepiness. Considerable heterogeneity in response to the nasal device was noted despite the high adherence rates. It remains unclear which patients will likely benefit a priori from these devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.