The Role of Positive Airway Pressure Therapy in Adults with Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is an undesirable complication of severe obesity. Although weight loss is an accepted component of management, it is difficult to achieve and sustain the degree of weight loss necessary to reverse OHS. As such, positive airway pressure (PAP) during sleep has become the cornerstone therapy for most patients with OHS. However, the value of PAP therapy remains uncertain. Objective To perform a systematic review to determine whether adults with OHS should be treated with PAP therapy or not. Methods This systematic review informed an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts who had converged to develop a clinical practice guideline on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from January 1946 to March 2019 for studies that compared PAP therapy (i.e., continuous PAP or noninvasive ventilation) to no PAP therapy in patients with OHS. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to appraise the quality of evidence. Results The search identified 2,994 unique articles. The full text of 56 articles was reviewed, and 25 studies were selected, including 3 randomized trials, 12 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 10 randomized and nonrandomized studies without a comparator group. Sample size ranged from 21 to 1,527 patients. PAP was associated with increased resolution of OHS and improvements in mortality, gas exchange, daytime sleepiness, sleep quality, quality of life, and emergency department visits. Nearly half of patients experienced trivial adverse effects related to PAP therapy. Certainty in the estimated effects was low or very low for most outcomes. Conclusions The panel made a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation that PAP therapy during sleep be offered to patients with OHS to improve outcomes. This recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".