Effectiveness of different mandibular advancement device designs in obstructive sleep apnoea therapy: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are used to treat patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). To date, there are no data that identify the most effective MAD design for apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) reduction. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of different MAD designs in AHI reduction and oxygen saturation improvement in OSA patients. An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and LILACS. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the reduction of AHI on adult patients wearing MAD for OSA were included. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and the risk of bias by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trial. The success rate of each study was computed: [(mean baseline AHI - mean AHI after treatment)/mean baseline AHI]. Fifty RCTs were included. The risk of bias resulted with some concerns in most of the studies. The GRADE scores indicated that the quality of evidence was very low. The meta-analysis showed a success rate with mono-bloc and duo-bloc MADs respectively of 0.821 [0.722-0.887] and 0.547 [0.443-0.637]. The mono-bloc compared with duo-bloc better improved the minimum oxygen saturation (10.048 [7.733-12.363] and 3.357 [2.290-4.423], respectively). There is a very low quality body of evidence that mono-bloc MADs are more effective in reducing AHI and improving minimum oxygen saturation compared with duo-bloc MADs. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (n. CRD42019118084).
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 | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.038 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".