Observational studyBMJ open2018
Comparison of success criteria based on long-term symptoms and new-onset hypertension in mandibular advancement device treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea: observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research priorities to improve classification of sleep-wake disorders.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Review
- Correlation between Polysomnographic Parameters and Tridimensional Changes in the Upper Airway of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients Treated with Mandibular Advancement Devices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Mandibular advancement device use in obstructive sleep apnea: ORCADES study 5-year follow-up data.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify adequate criteria to determine the success or failure of mandibular advancement device (MAD) treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) based on long-term symptoms and new-onset hypertension.
designObservational cohort study.
settingA tertiary care hospital setting in South Korea.
participantsPatients (age >18 years) who were diagnosed with OSA by a polysomnography (PSG) or Watch peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT), and who had been treated with MAD between January 2007 and December 2014 were enrolled. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients underwent PSG or Watch PAT twice; before and 3 months after the application of MAD. The patients were categorised into success and failure groups using seven different criteria. MAD compliance, witnessed apnoea and snoring, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score and occurrence of new-onset hypertension were surveyed via telephonic interview to determine the criteria that could identify success and failure of MAD.
resultsA total of 97 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 60.5 months, and the mean apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) was 35.5/hour. Two of the seven criteria could significantly differentiate the success and failure groups based on long-term symptoms, including (1) AHI<10/hour with MAD and (2) AHI<10/hour and AHI reduction of >50% with MAD. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that one criterion of AHI<15/hour with MAD could differentiate the success and failure groups based on new-onset hypertension (p=0.035). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that the cut-off AHI for new-onset hypertension was 16.8/hour (71.4% sensitivity and 75.0% specificity).
conclusionOur long-term follow-up survey for symptoms and new-onset hypertension suggested that some of the polysomnographic success criteria, that is, AHI<10/hour with MAD, AHI<10/hour and AHI reduction of >50% with MAD and AHI<15/hour with MAD may be useful in distinguishing the success group from failure one. Further prospective longitudinal studies are warranted to validate these criteria.
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.