Observational studySleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2015
Diagnostic pathways for obstructive sleep apnoea in the Australian community: observations from pharmacy-based CPAP providers.
Observational study in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of pharmacists performing obstructive sleep apnea screening services.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeModels for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) are evolving in many countries to meet public demand. In Australia, the unregulated sleep industry does not provide a framework to govern or review emerging pathways in the community. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe current diagnostic pathways for OSA in Australia as reported by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) providers in community pharmacies and (2) obtain stakeholder feedback on pathways and identify potential areas for practice improvement.
methodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with pharmacy-based CPAP practitioners. Participants described diagnostic pathways used in their setting. Subsequently, an expert forum of stakeholders provided feedback on identified pathways during a focus group.
resultsTwenty-two telephone interviews were conducted, identifying six key diagnostic pathways. Pathways varied in terms of the diagnostic test used, the practitioner who initiated or interpreted the test and who discussed results with the patient and made treatment recommendations. A nine-member stakeholder group raised medical, ethical and organisational concerns over certain pathways. Concerns included diagnostic tests initiated or interpreted in the absence of an appropriately trained medical practitioner and potential conflicts of interest for CPAP providers offering both diagnostic and treatment services. A best practice framework was proposed to guide practice and translate study findings. Preliminary practice recommendations were subsequently developed.
conclusionsDiagnostic models have evolved in Australia that raise stakeholder concerns. It is important to address these concerns while still facilitating patient access to services. Development of a practice framework could promote medically appropriate, patient-centred care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25801279What 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.