Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35035552›Full record

ReviewBreathe (Sheffield, England)2021

Defining obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome: a failure of semantic rules.

Renata L Riha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

1 author.

Renata L RihaDept of Sleep Medicine, Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8983-9985

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is one of the most ubiquitous medical conditions in industrialised society. Since the recognition that symptoms of excessive daytime somnolence, problems with concentration, mood and cognitive impairment, as well as cardiometabolic abnormalities can arise as a consequence of obstructed breathing during sleep, it has been subject to variation in its definition. Over the past five decades, attempts have been made to standardise the definitions and scoring criteria used for apnoeas and hypopnoea, which are the hallmarks of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, applying these definitions in clinical and research practice has resulted in over- and under-estimation of the severity and prevalence of OSAS. Furthermore, the definitions may eventually become redundant in the context of rapid technological advances in breathing measurement and other signal acquisition. Increased efforts towards precision medicine have led to a focus on the pathophysiology of obstructed breathing during sleep. However, the same degree of effort has not been focused on how and why the latter does or does not result in diurnal symptoms, integral to the definition of OSAS. This review focuses on OSAS in adults and discusses some of the difficulties with current definitions and the possible reasons behind them.

Identifiers

PMID35035552
PMCPMC8753646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.