ArticleCureus2024
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment and the Evaluation of Clinical Effectiveness of Uniquely Designed Oral Appliance Therapy Device.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been considered first-line therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); however, adherence to the therapy is suboptimal. Oral appliance therapy (OAT) is an alternative to CPAP that may lend to better patient adherence, quality of life, and overall patients' effectiveness of therapy.
methodsThis was a prospective, single-site, non-randomized study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a uniquely designed OAT device with an embedded adherence tracking chip in the treatment of mild and moderate OSA patients over three months. The effectiveness of OAT therapy was defined as the numerical product of efficacy and adherence. The efficacy of the device was defined as the change from baseline in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Adherence was based on usage for a minimum of 4 hours/night of use, for at least five out of seven nights a week.
results45 participants fitted with the OAT device completed at least one follow-up visit and had recordable objective data. Average patient wearing time was 7 hours/night and a reduction of the AHI from 16.4 events/hour to 5.7 events/hour after three months of use. Mean disease alleviation (MDA), which serves as a measure of the overall therapeutic effectiveness, was 62% when looking at 4 hours/night of usage. As the comfort of the device is related to wearing time, subjective data indicated the optimum first-time fit of the device.
conclusionThe study OAT device was well tolerated throughout the study. When both efficacy and adherence are considered, OAT can be a clinically effective tool to treat 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.