ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Adult primary snoring: a modified Delphi consensus among Chinese otolaryngologists with AI-assisted evidence synthesis.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary snoring is common in adults, but its definition, diagnostic boundaries, and management remain inconsistent. Misclassification between primary snoring and mild obstructive sleep apnea may expose patients to either unnecessary treatment or inadequate evaluation. This expert consensus aimed to develop an evidence-informed framework for adult primary snoring that emphasizes objective exclusion of obstructive sleep apnea and patient- and bed-partner-centered outcomes. Methods: A modified Delphi study enrolled a purposive panel of 30 experts in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery and sleep medicine from five Chinese regions. A 25-source targeted evidence corpus, supplemented by question-driven searches and human-verified artificial intelligence-assisted extraction, informed 75 unique candidate items. Four anonymous online rounds used a 9-point scale; consensus was predefined as at least 80% agreement and strong consensus as at least 90%. A pragmatic three-level evidence-basis label distinguished direct evidence from indirect evidence and expert consensus. Results: Round response rates were 93.3% (28/30), 96.7% (29/30), 96.7% (29/30), and 96.7% (29/30). Of 75 unique candidate items, 68 reached consensus; consolidation yielded 54 final statements and seven explicit non-consensus items. The framework separates clinically suspected from objectively confirmed primary snoring, addresses night-to-night diagnostic variability, and prioritizes patient- and bed-partner-centered outcomes. First-line care is proportional and phenotype-informed; custom titratable mandibular advancement devices are the preferred device-based option for suitable patients, while surgery is restricted to selected anatomical targets. Conclusions: This consensus provides a transparent, risk-stratified framework for adult primary snoring and identifies unresolved controversies. Multidisciplinary external validation, standardized outcome definitions, and prospective phenotype-stratified trials are required before broad international adoption.
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.