Does Obstructive Sleep Apnea Influence Perioperative Outcome? A Qualitative Systematic Review for the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Task Force on Preoperative Preparation of Patients with Sleep-Disordered Breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a commonly encountered problem in the perioperative setting even though many patients remain undiagnosed at the time of surgery. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate whether the diagnosis of OSA has an impact on postoperative outcomes. We performed a systematic review of studies published in PubMed-MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and other nonindexed citations, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Health Technology Assessment up to November 2014. Studies of adult patients with a diagnosis of OSA or high risk thereof, published in the English language, undergoing surgery or procedures under anesthesia care, and reporting ≥1 postoperative outcome were included. Overall, the included studies reported on 413,304 OSA and 8,556,279 control patients. The majority reported worse outcomes for a number of events, including pulmonary and combined complications, among patients with OSA versus the reference group. The association between OSA and in-hospital mortality varied among studies; 9 studies showed no impact of OSA on mortality, 3 studies suggested a decrease in mortality, and 1 study reported increased mortality. In summary, the majority of studies suggest that the presence of OSA is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".