ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2025
Continuous positive airway pressure versus usual care for obstructive sleep apnoea in pregnancy: a two-step pilot trial.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A sophisticated predictive framework for identifying obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in women with obesity during pregnancy.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with increasing body mass index (BMI) and affects up to 15% of pregnant women. OSA in pregnancy can be associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may be an effective treatment for OSA during pregnancy.
aimTo examine the feasibility and acceptability of screening women with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m
methodsThis study was a single-centre, two-stage pilot study. Firstly, all consenting participants were screened for OSA and then, only if diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA (AHI ≥ 15), randomised to CPAP or no CPAP. The feasibility of the OSA screening was determined by recruitment rates. A priori criteria of > 20% recruitment to the sleep study were considered feasible. The acceptability of the sleep study was examined using the completion rate and reasons for withdrawal prior to the sleep study. The acceptability of CPAP randomisation was assessed by completion rates for women randomised, adherence to CPAP, reasons for withdrawal, and the review of quality-of-life measures over the course of pregnancy.
resultsNinety-six women with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m DISCUSSION: A definitive trial screening women for OSA and subsequent randomisation to treatment or no treatment may be feasible. Future trials should be resourced to expand inclusion criteria, improve accessibility for participants, evaluate clinical and cost-effectiveness, and investigate partial treatment effects.
trial registrationACTRN, ACTRN12621001523897. Registered 9 September 2021 - retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Update/Step8_Update.aspx?id=382640.
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.