SynthesisJournal of sleep research2026
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Versus Mandibular Advancement Devices Impact on Cardio-Metabolic Outcomes in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of sleep research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea contributes to cardiovascular morbidity, and its treatment may mitigate this risk. Continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices are established therapies, but their comparative cardiometabolic effects remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials from multiple major databases through May 2024, pooling dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios and continuous outcomes as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using StataMP version 17. Across 14 randomised trials including 1241 patients, CPAP showed clear advantages over MAD. CPAP significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein (MD -15.20 mg/dL; 95% CI -28.86 to -1.53), total cholesterol (MD -17.10 mg/dL; 95% CI -30.15 to -4.05) and dipping diastolic blood pressure (MD -3.12 mmHg; 95% CI -5.62 to -0.62). No meaningful differences emerged between the two therapies for serum glucose, HDL, triglycerides, 24-h mean blood pressure, systolic or diastolic pressures during sleep or wakefulness, or heart rate metrics. Overall, CPAP demonstrated superior lipid and diastolic blood pressure improvement compared with MAD, pointing towards a more favourable cardiometabolic profile. Both interventions remain effective treatments for OSA, yet CPAP may provide added benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk factors and appears to be the preferred modality in patients with elevated cardiometabolic risk.
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.