Trial reportSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2016
Randomised short-term trial of high-span versus low-span APAP for treating sleep apnoea.
Trial report in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of risk factors for air leakage in auto-titrating positive airway pressure users: a single-center study.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022Article
- Alternative Procedure to Individual Nasal Pressure Titration for Sleep Apnea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAuto-titrating continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) devices were developed to improve treatment efficacy and compliance in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). Since there are insufficient data on the optimal pressure range setting, we aimed to compare the adherence, efficacy and tolerability of treatment with high-span versus low-span APAP.
methodsSeventy-six newly diagnosed OSAS patients fulfilling the treatment criteria were randomised to receive high-span (HS, range 4-15cmH2O, n = 38) or low-span (LS, range 8-12cmH2O, n = 38) APAP. Patients were assessed at 1 and 3 months.
resultsMedian Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) was 13 (IQR, 6-16) and median apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) was 35.9 (IQR, 27.6-56.3). There were no significant differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between groups. Overall, no significant differences were found at the first month assessment. After 3 months of therapy, we found again no differences in residual AHI or ESS. However, the group HS proved less adherent than group LS, respectively, with median 87 % (IQR, 60.5-97.5) versus 94 % (IQR, 80.0-98.3) of the nights using ≥4 h (P = 0.014) and mean (±SD) usage 5.7 ± 1.6 versus 6.4 ± 1.2 h/night (P = 0.049). The group HS reported more frequently nasal congestion, excessive oronasal dryness and nocturnal awakenings of at least moderate intensity, the latter with statistical significance (P = 0.005).
conclusionsBoth pressure ranges appear to be equally effective to correct AHI and to improve symptoms. Though, patients with high-span APAP were less compliant to treatment, raising issues about the tolerability of wide pressure range settings of 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.