ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Varying Hypopnea Definitions and Treatment Eligibility in Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to compare two definitions of hypopnea: ≥ 4% decrease in the oxygen saturation (4% criterion) vs. ≥ 3% decrease in the oxygen saturation or an arousal (3%A criterion) in the diagnosis, severity determination and potential treatment eligibility in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
methodsA post-hoc secondary cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Sleep Ancillary Study cohort. Concordance between the two hypopnea criteria used to calculate the Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI) were determined. Comparisons include diagnosis and severity of OSA and potential treatment eligibility with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and tirzepatide. Subgroup analyses examined variations across demographic subgroups and supine positioning.
results2057 participants were analyzed; 60% (n = 1,235) were reclassified using the 4% criterion with a decrease in severity or loss of diagnosis as compared to the 3%A criterion. Among participants potentially eligible for CPAP therapy using the 3%A criterion, 61.3% (n = 791) were classified as ineligible under the 4% criterion (p < 0.0001, Cramér’s V = 0.63). 35% (n = 180) of participants potentially eligible for tirzepatide under the 3%A criterion were reclassified as ineligible under the 4% criterion. Increased discordance was found in females than males (65.9% (n = 388) vs. 57.5% (n = 403), p = 0.0018) while supine positioning decreased discordance.
conclusionsUse of the 4% criterion was associated with substantial differences in OSA classification and potential treatment eligibility compared with the 3%A criterion. These differences were observed across severity categories and demographic subgroups with discordance more frequent among females.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41925927What 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.