ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2018
Defining the Core Components of a Clinical Review of People Using Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy to Treat Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An International e-Delphi Study.
Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2018. 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.
- 2024 Standardization of Polysomnography Reports - A Consensus of the Brazilian Sleep Association.Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
- Healthy sleep practices for shift workers: consensus sleep hygiene guidelines using a Delphi methodology.Sleep · 2023Article
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
STUDY
objectivesGuidelines recommend regular review of individuals using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat obstructive sleep apnea but do not agree on the core components and frequency. We aimed to achieve consensus on essential components and frequency of review.
methodsWe used an e-Delphi approach, recruiting a multidisciplinary international expert panel to identify components based on a list compiled from guidelines and to score these on a scale 1 to 5 over three rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement for scores of 4 or higher. Free-text comments were thematically analyzed.
resultsForty participants completed 3 rounds scoring 36 potential components. Seventeen components achieved consensus: treatment acceptability, sleep quality, symptom resolution (including reduction in apnea-hypopnea index), assessment of sleepiness (including when driving), technical CPAP issues (mask fit/humidification/cleaning/filters), recording CPAP adherence, and quality of life. Participants suggested 12 to 18 monthly reviews (more frequent when commencing CPAP) or "on demand." Free-text comments highlighted that reviews should be multidisciplinary, flexible (including telehealth), and focus on symptom control.
conclusionsWe mapped 17 prioritized components to a suggested template that may support clinical reviews. Reviews should be flexible, frequently in the early stages of commencing CPAP, shifting to "on demand" and/or remote follow-up for maintenance. Our findings may inform future guideline recommendations for reviewing CPAP users.
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.