ReviewSomnologie : Schlafforschung und Schlafmedizin = Somnology : sleep research and sleep medicine2022
[Consensus statement of the Austrian Sleep Medicine Society on the management of residual excessive daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea].
Review in Somnologie : Schlafforschung und Schlafmedizin = Somnology : sleep research and sleep medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Six to ten percent of patients with obstructive sleep apnea suffer from residual excessive daytime sleepiness (rEDS) despite adequate nocturnal positive airway pressure therapy or effective alternative treatment. The differential diagnosis of rEDS is an interdisciplinary challenge in clinical practice. Objectives: Development of a clear guideline for the detection, differential diagnostic considerations, and options for the continuing treatment of rEDS in clinical practice. Methods: MeSH analysis-based research and interdisciplinary consensus among specialists in internal medicine and pneumology, neurology, as well as psychiatry and psychotherapy. Results: The SPAIN checklist for systematic differential diagnostic exploration of rEDS with the parameters: Conclusions: rEDS should be recognized as a symptom worthy of treatment. It requires an interdisciplinary assessment and the individual adaptation of the treatment to the needs of the affected person.
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.