ReviewSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Comparative effects of CPAP and mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea: an overview of systematic reviews.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis overview of systematic reviews aimed to compare continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea by distinguishing objective physiological outcomes from patient-centered outcomes and critically appraising the methodological quality of the available evidence.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42021268587), we systematically searched five databases to identify systematic reviews comparing continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea based on a PICO framework. The outcomes of interest included the Apnea-Hypopnea Index, oxygen desaturation index, treatment adherence, and quality of life. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, and overlap among reviews was evaluated using a citation matrix and the corrected covered area.
resultsFourteen systematic reviews were included. CPAP demonstrated greater efficacy than mandibular advancement devices in improving objective physiological outcomes, particularly the apnea-hypopnea index and oxygen desaturation indices. Both therapies showed comparable effects on daytime sleepiness, while some reviews reported better treatment adherence and more favorable patient-centered outcomes with MADs. Methodological quality was limited: no review was classified as high quality, and most were assessed as low or critically low quality. Analysis of the corrected coverage area indicated a high overlap between the primary studies included in the different reviews.
conclusionContinuous positive airway pressure is more effective than mandibular advancement devices in improving the apnea-hypopnea index and oxygen desaturation index. However, mandibular advancement devices were associated with positive effects on quality of life and sleep, though certainty regarding the sustainability of these outcomes and their long-term efficacy remains limited in the current literature. Treatment choice should be individualized, and evidence should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations and the high overlap between the included systematic reviews. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD2021268587.
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.