SynthesisBMC oral health2024
Oral appliance therapy vs. positional therapy for managing positional obstructive sleep apnea; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of sleep positional therapy, oral appliance therapy, and CPAP in obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis of mean changes in key outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Positional Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Model for Precision Sleep Medicine.Journal of otorhinolaryngology, hearing and balance medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of sleep apnoea interventions on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Advancing Obstructive Sleep Apnea Management: Recent Trends from Conventional to Innovative Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Positional Therapy: A Real Opportunity in the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea? An Update from the Literature.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessing the Knowledge and Awareness of Obstructive Sleep Apnea among Patient Families in Saudi Arabia: A Qualitative Study [Letter].International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo assess the efficacy of positional therapy and oral appliance therapy for the management of positional obstructive sleep apnea.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials. Quality assessment of the included trials was evaluated according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), AHI non-supine, AHI supine, sleep efficiency, percentage of supine sleep, Adherence (≥ 4 h/night, ≥ 5 days/week), Oxygen desaturation Index, Arousal Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (ESS), Mean SpO2, and Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire.
resultsThe AHI non-supine and the ESS scores were significantly lower in the OAT cohort than in the PT cohort. The PT cohort was associated with a significantly decreased percentage of supine sleep than the OAT cohort (MD= -26.07 [-33.15, -19.00], P = 0.0001). There was no significant variation between PT cohort and OAT cohort regarding total AHI, AHI supine, ODI, sleep efficiency, arousal index, FOSQ, adherence, and mean SpO2.
conclusionBoth Positional Therapy and Oral Appliance Therapy effectively addressed Obstructive Sleep Apnea. However, Oral Appliance Therapy exhibited higher efficiency, leading to increased supine sleep percentage and more significant reductions in the Apnea Hypopnea Index during non-supine positions, as well as lower scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.
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.