MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329583039 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000000634

The Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Postoperative Outcomes in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients Undergoing Surgery

2015· review· en· W2329583039 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuous positive airway pressureObstructive sleep apneaPerioperativeAdverse effectAnesthesiaAirwaySleep apneaApneaPositive airway pressureSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a commonly encountered comorbid condition in patients undergoing surgery and is associated with a greater risk of postoperative adverse events. Our objective in this review was to investigate the effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in reducing the risk of postoperative adverse events in patients with OSA undergoing surgery, the perioperative Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), and the hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature databases. We reviewed the studies that included the following: (1) adult surgical patients (>18 years old) with information available on OSA; (2) patients using either preoperative and/or postoperative CPAP or no-CPAP; (3) available reports on postoperative adverse events, preoperative and postoperative AHI, and LOS; and (4) all published studies in English including case series. RESULTS: Six studies that included 904 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis for postoperative adverse events was performed in 904 patients (CPAP: n = 471 vs no-CPAP: n = 433; adverse events: 134 vs 133; P = 0.19). There was no significant difference in the postoperative adverse events between the 2 groups. The preoperative baseline AHI without CPAP was reduced significantly with postoperative use of CPAP (preoperative AHI versus postoperative AHI, 37 ± 19 vs 12 ± 16 events per hour, P < 0.001). LOS showed a trend toward significance in the CPAP group versus the no-CPAP group (4.0 ± 4 vs 4.4 ± 8 days, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that there was no significant difference in the postoperative adverse events between CPAP and no-CPAP treatment. Patients using CPAP had significantly lower postoperative AHI and a trend toward shorter LOS. There may be potential benefits in the use of CPAP during the perioperative period.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it