Dropout and adherence of obstructive sleep apnoea patients to mandibular advancement device therapy: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta‐analysis and meta‐regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are used as an alternative to continuous positive airways pressure to treat obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients, but to date, specific data on the adherence to MAD therapy are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the dropout rate and adherence of OSA patients to different custom-made (CM) and non-custom-made (NCM) MAD therapies. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, LILACS and Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the compliance to customised and not customised MADs in the treatment of adult OSA patients were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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 RCT. The dropout rate of each study was computed and the adherence to MAD therapy in terms of hours per night and nights per week was extracted from each study. RESULTS: Thirty-two RCTs were included. The risk of bias resulted low in most of the studies. The GRADE scores indicated that the quality of evidence was from very low to moderate. The meta-analyses showed that the mean dropout rate did not significantly differ between CM and NCM MADs: The overall mean dropout rate was 0.171 [0.128-0.213] with a mean follow-up of 4.1 months. The hours per night adherence was significantly higher for CM MADs (6.418 [6.033-6.803]) compared to NCM MADs (5.107 [4.324-5.890]. The meta-regression showed that the dropout rate increases significantly during time (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low to moderate quality of evidence that the dropout rate of MAD therapy is similar among CM and NCM MADs, that the dropout rate increases significantly during time and that CM MADs have higher hours per night adherence compared with NCM MAD. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (n. CRD42020199866).
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 | 0.036 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".