ReviewSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
From retrospective to prospective design: a short communication on why the methodological paradigm for qualitative research on delayed medical consultation in obstructive sleep apnea may need to be reconstructed.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsQualitative research offers key insights into enablers and obstacles of healthcare-seeking behavior, and the credibility of findings depends on methodological quality. This study aims to critically appraise the methodological quality of existing qualitative studies on delayed medical consultation in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients, thereby identifying common limitations and offering recommendations for future improvements.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases, covering literature from inception to February 2026. Inclusion criteria were qualitative studies (e.g., phenomenological, ethnographic, or grounded theory paradigms) on medical consultation delays in adult OSA patients, excluding single-case studies or narrative reports with very small samples. Two reviewers independently assessed studies against five dimensions, with disagreements resolved by discussion.
resultsThree studies were included, from which eight methodological issues were identified: (1) potential "survivorship bias" from including only diagnosed patients; (2) recall bias in retrospective designs; (3) insufficient consideration of the role of comorbidities in the healthcare-seeking process; (4) unclear directionality between cognitive factors and delayed behavior; (5) lack of in-depth analysis of deviant cases; (6) oversimplified view of family/friend support; (7) insufficient transparency in reporting interview guides and data saturation; and (8) absence of researcher reflexivity during data collection and analysis.
conclusionsCurrent qualitative studies on delayed medical consultation in OSA patients have several methodological flaws that may affect their validity. Future research should prioritize prospective, community-based studies targeting high-risk OSA populations not yet seeking medical help, and comprehensively document the entire trajectory of their medical consultation delay. This will enhance research rigor and provide clearer guidance for developing more actionable intervention strategies.
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.