ReviewEuropean clinical respiratory journal2025
Cost-effectiveness of CPAP treatment in a tax-funded healthcare system - a scoping review and suggestions for cost reduction of CPAP treatment.
Review in European clinical respiratory journal, 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.
- The Global Initiative for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (GIFOSA): Rationale, Strategic Framework, and Call to Action.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is an increasing global public health problem. The primary treatment option is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The cost-effectiveness of CPAP in patients with OSA is incompletely characterized. Methods: For this scoping review, we conducted a PubMed search for cost-effectiveness analysis of CPAP treatment in European countries with tax-funded healthcare systems and for clinical practices to reduce costs of CPAP without reducing treatment quality. OSA severity was classified by the overnight apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI). The primary outcome was to define the cost-effectiveness of CPAP in high-income European countries with tax-funded healthcare systems. The second outcome was to describe possible clinical practices that may reduce costs of CPAP for patients with OSA without reducing CPAP treatment quality. Results: CPAP is a cost-effective treatment for those with severe or moderate OSA with symptoms, especially for middle-aged and overweight males. However, the cost-effectiveness remains unclear in mild OSA or moderate OSA without disabling sleepiness. Although CPAP adherence affects cost-effectiveness, this was not considered in all cost-effectiveness studies. The cost of CPAP treatment can be reduced, for instance, by choosing overnight polygraphy at home for diagnostics, remote contacts, nurse- and primary care-led follow-up, and by evaluating the number of necessary healthcare contacts for CPAP. Conclusion: CPAP seems to be cost-effective and should be initiated at least for those with severe OSA or moderate OSA with symptoms. CPAP adherence should be considered in cost-effectiveness studies. There are clinical practices that can reduce CPAP treatment costs without reducing treatment quality.
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.