ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2020
Self-setup of home respiratory polygraphy for the diagnosis of sleep apnea syndrome: cost-efficiency study.
Article 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home-testing devices for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnoea hypopnoea syndrome - a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the differences in reliability and costs of home respiratory polygraphy (HRP) when installed by the patient and by a nurse, in order to determine the factors affecting and to consider the possible generalization of self-setup procedure. Several HRP devices have been validated for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis but convenience of a nurse intervention in HRP installation has been scarcely studied.
methodsThis is a prospective and interventional study. About 301 participants were assigned to 2 groups: self-setup and nurse intervention. Sleep study, questionnaires, and diagnostic procedures were performed following the clinical practice in 2016. Signals were considered lost above 3 min, and success of the test was established according to guidelines. Costs were calculated according to a previous multicenter study.
resultsBoth groups (self-setup and nurse intervention) resulted homogeneous in age, gender, BMI, and final diagnosis of OSA. Signal losses during the test were similar in both groups. Slightly higher percentage of unsuccessful tests were obtained in the self-setup procedure (5.3 vs 2.0%, p = 0.121). The costs were similar (107 vs 105 €) in the self-setup group as compared to the nurse setup group.
conclusionsThe setup of HRP by either the patient or nurse had similar costs and data acquisition. Both installation procedures of HRP were similar regarding test reliability and costs. Main findings are that self-installation by the patient could be similarly reliable and economic as installation by a nurse, as far as consensus guidelines are followed. This study demonstrates that self-setup of HRP is a potentially viable option for the diagnosis of 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.