ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Efficacy of Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). A literature search was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library using keywords related to HNS, CPAP, and OSA, with a 10-year time limit (2014-2024). Five comparative clinical studies (four retrospective cohort studies and one prospective cohort study) were included. Outcome measures included the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), mean disease alleviation (MDA), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Both HNS and CPAP significantly reduced AHI from baseline in all included studies (p < 0.001). Between-group differences in AHI reduction were inconsistent across studies. MDA was higher in HNS patients than in CPAP patients in two studies (59% vs. 51%; 22.9% vs. 5.0%). All studies demonstrated statistically significant improvements in ESS scores in both groups; most studies favored HNS, while one study showed a slightly greater improvement with CPAP. Both treatments effectively reduce respiratory events in OSA. Due to high heterogeneity, variable follow-up periods, and non-randomized designs, no definitive conclusion can be drawn that HNS is superior to CPAP. However, HNS is associated with better patient-reported outcomes and higher real-world effectiveness, likely related to superior adherence. HNS represents a valuable alternative for patients who are intolerant to CPAP. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are required to confirm comparative efficacy.
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.