Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32056536›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2020

Jaw thrust versus the use of a boil-and-bite mandibular advancement device as a screening tool during drug-induced sleep endoscopy.

Patty E Vonk, Julia A M Uniken Venema, Aarnoud Hoekema, Madeline J L Ravesloot, Johanna A van de Velde-Muusers, Nico de Vries

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Patty E VonkDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Julia A M Uniken VenemaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra/Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Aarnoud HoekemaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra/Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Madeline J L RaveslootDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Johanna A van de Velde-MuusersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Nico de VriesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLOLVG · NLAcademic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesThe objectives of this study were to analyze agreement in degree of obstruction and configuration of the upper airway between jaw thrust and an oral device in situ during drug-induced sleep endoscopy and to evaluate clinical decision making using jaw thrust or a boil-and-bite mandibular advancement device (MAD; the MyTAP).

methodsThis was a single-center prospective cohort study in patients with obstructive sleep apnea who underwent drug-induced sleep endoscopy between January and July 2019.

resultsSixty-three patients were included. Agreement among observations in the supine position for degree of obstruction was 60% (n = 36, κ = 0.41) at the level of the velum, 68.3% (n = 41, κ = 0.35) for oropharynx, 58.3% (n = 35, κ = 0.28) for tongue base, and 56.7% (n = 34, κ = 0.14) for epiglottis; agreement among observations in the lateral position were 81.7% (n = 49, κ = 0.32), 71.7% (n = 43, κ = 0.36), 90.0% (n = 54, κ = 0.23), and 96.7% (n = 58, κ = could not be determined), respectively. In the supine position, agreement for configuration of obstruction at the level of the velum was found in 20 of 29 patients (69.0%, κ = 0.41) and in the lateral position was 100%. Thirty patients would have been prescribed a MAD using jaw thrust and 34 using the boil-and-bite MAD as a screening instrument. The main reason for being labeled as nonsuitable was complete residual retropalatal collapse during jaw thrust. Using the boil-and-bite MAD, this was caused by complete retropalatal or hypopharyngeal collapse.

conclusionsThere is only slight to moderate agreement in degree of obstruction for jaw thrust and a new-generation boil-and-bite MAD during drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Greater improvement of upper airway patency at the hypopharyngeal level was observed during jaw thrust, but this maneuver was less effective in improving upper airway obstruction at the retropalatal level.

Indexed as

Mandibular AdvancementPharmaceutical PreparationsEndoscopyHumansOcclusal SplintsProspective StudiesSleepPharmaceutical Preparationsdrug-induced sleep endoscopyjaw thrustmandibular advancement deviceobstructive sleep apneasleep-disordered breathing,treatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID32056536
PMCPMC7954074
OpenAlexW3006540441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.