Trial reportSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2024
Is video demonstration for type III sleep studies performance worse than technical face-to-face teaching?
Trial report in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the most common sleep-disordered breathing. The high prevalence makes its diagnosis a priority. To perform type III sleep studies, patients usually receive instructions from a technician. The switch to instructions through a video could save professionals time and make OSA diagnosis more accessible. This study aimed to compare the technical quality of type III sleep studies when instructions are provided by face-to-face technical teaching or via video.
methodsOne hundred consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with suspected OSA were randomly assigned to receive device placement instructions in person by a technician or through video (50 in each group). The overall quality of the sleep studies was analyzed by determining the number of technically invalid studies. The recording quality of four sensors (pulse oximeter, nasal flow cannula, chest, and abdominal bands) was evaluated by checking for signal artifacts.
resultsThe majority (86%) of the studies were valid. 20% of the studies in the face-to-face group and 8% of the studies in the video-instruction group were technically invalid, but no statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.148). The quality of the oximetry signal was better in those who received video instructions (p = 0.05). Regarding the recording quality of the remaining sensors, no significant differences were found.
conclusionsType III sleep studies with previous explanation through a video are as effective as those with an explanation performed by a technician, with associated advantages, without increased errors. The quality of the oximetry signal was better in the video group, a critical signal for OSA diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39017901What 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.