Observational studySleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2020
Treatment outcome of oral appliance in patients with REM-related obstructive sleep apnea.
Observational study in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence and efficacy of mandibular advancement splint treatment of sleep-disordered breathing during pregnancy: a pilot study.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2023Trial
- Predictive factors of therapeutic response according to craniofacial skeletal biotype in patients with sleep apnea syndrome using mandibular advancement devices: a pilot study.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- REM sleep obstructive sleep apnoea.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Article
- Prediction of Mandibular Advancement Device Response Using CPAP Pressure in Different Polysomnographic Phenotypes.Nature and science of sleep · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Respiratory Resistance as a Predictor for Oral Appliance Treatment Response in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Pilot Study.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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOral appliances (OA) are used to treat patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of OA treatment in patients with rapid eye movement (REM)-related OSA.
methodsForty-six patients with REM-related OSA and 107 with non-stage-specific OSA were prescribed OA treatment after diagnosis by polysomnography (PSG) and a follow-up sleep test by PSG was conducted. Efficacy and treatment outcome predictors were evaluated according to the following criteria for treatment success: #1, reduction of the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) to less than 5 and > 50% compared with baseline; #2, AHI reduction to less than 10 and > 50% compared with baseline; and #3, > 50% AHI reduction compared with baseline.
resultsSuccess rates according to criteria #1, #2, and #3 were 45.7%, 50.0%, and 50.0% in REM-related OSA and 36.4%, 52.3%, and 63.6% in non-stage-specific OSA, respectively. No significant differences in success rate were found between the two groups. In multivariate logistic regression analysis with each criterion as the response variable, only BMI was extracted as a significant predictor. The BMI cutoff values defined based on the maximum Youden index according to the three criteria were 26.2 kg/m
conclusionsNo significant differences in success rate of OA treatment were found between REM-related OSA and non-stage-specific OSA. BMI has greater impact on treatment outcome of OA in patients with REM-related OSA.
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.