Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26798519›Full record

ReviewSleep disorders2015

Nasal Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure Devices (Provent) for OSA: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Muhammad Riaz, Victor Certal, Gaurav Nigam, Jose Abdullatif, Soroush Zaghi, Clete A Kushida, Macario Camacho

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sleep disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Oropharyngeal and tongue exercises (myofunctional therapy) for snoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. [The treatment progress of obstructive sleep apnea in children].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Treatments for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Journal of clinical outcomes management : JCOM · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Muhammad RiazTwin Cities Community Hospital, Templeton, CA 93465, USA.
Victor CertalDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Sleep Medicine Centre, Hospital CUF, 4100-180 Porto, Portugal; Centre for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.
Gaurav NigamClay County Hospital, 911 Stacy Burk Drive, Flora, IL 62839, USA.
Jose AbdullatifDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital Bernardino Rivadavia, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Soroush ZaghiDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Clete A KushidaSleep Medicine Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA.
Macario CamachoSleep Medicine Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA; Division of Otolaryngology, Sleep Surgery, and Sleep Medicine, Tripler Army Medical Center (Tripler AMC), 1 Jarrett White Road, Honolulu, HI 96859, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. To quantify the effectiveness of nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (nasal EPAP) devices or Provent as treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods. PubMed and six other databases were searched through November 15, 2015, without language limitations. Results. Eighteen studies (920 patients) were included. Pre- and post-nasal EPAP means ± standard deviations (M ± SD) for apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in 345 patients decreased from 27.32 ± 22.24 to 12.78 ± 16.89 events/hr (relative reduction = 53.2%). Random effects modeling mean difference (MD) was -14.78 events/hr [95% CI -19.12, -10.45], p value < 0.00001. Oxygen desaturation index (ODI) in 247 patients decreased from 21.2 ± 19.3 to 12.4 ± 14.1 events/hr (relative reduction = 41.5%, p value < 0.00001). Lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) M ± SD improved in 146 patients from 83.2 ± 6.8% to 86.2 ± 11.1%, MD 3 oxygen saturation points [95% CI 0.57, 5.63]. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) M ± SD improved (359 patients) from 9.9 ± 5.3 to 7.4 ± 5.0, MD -2.5 [95% CI -3.2, -1.8], p value < 0.0001. Conclusion. Nasal EPAP (Provent) reduced AHI by 53.2%, ODI by 41.5% and improved LSAT by 3 oxygen saturation points. Generally, there were no clear characteristics (demographic factors, medical history, and/or physical exam finding) that predicted favorable response to these devices. However, limited evidence suggests that high nasal resistance could be associated with treatment failure. Additional studies are needed to identify demographic and polysomnographic characteristics that would predict therapeutic success with nasal EPAP (Provent).

Identifiers

PMID26798519
PMCPMC4699057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.