ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2023
Comparative efficacy of mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different Oral Appliance Designs Demonstrate Different Rates of Efficacy for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Review Article.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Indications of Different Types of Mandibular Advancement Design for Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Indications from Literature Review and Case Descriptions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Effect of Bite Raise on AHI Values in Adult Patients Affected by OSA: A Systematic Review with Meta-Regression.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Treatment of Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea Using Mandibular Advancement Device: A Case Report.Cureus · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze relative efficacies of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) in sleep apnea treatment.
methodsFrom eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT), MADs were classified based on their mechanistic designs. Data on apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), nadir oxygen saturation (minSaO
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between MADs in any of the outcomes analyzed. However, the P-scores, based on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, ranked some MADs higher than others in some of the outcomes. Of the different mechanistic designs, the highest P scores were achieved for attached midline traction (P score = 0.84) and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.78) devices for AHI reduction, attached bilateral traction (P score = 0.78) and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.76) for ESS, monobloc (P score = 0.91) and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.64) for minSaO
conclusionsFindings from this study show clinically (but not statistically) significant differences between MADs in terms of their relative efficacy when analyzed for different sleep apnea treatment outcomes and sleep apnea phenotypes.
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.