Patient-Reported Outcomes of Maxillomandibular Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The present scoping review aims to scrutinize all existing patient-reported outcomes and assess the perspectives of obstructive sleep apnea patients after maxillomandibular surgery. (2) Methods: The review was carried out according to the extensions for scoping reviews using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Several databases were used to carry out the initial search. This study included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional and case-control studies. The included studies considered patients with obstructive sleep apnea who were submitted to orthognathic surgery as the main subjects, and the patient’s perception of quality of life, satisfaction, treatment experience and side effects were assessed. (3) Results: From 1407 examined articles, a total of 16 were included. Most of the included studies used more than one questionnaire to assess quality of life, except for five articles. The most commonly referred instruments were the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, SF-36, the Functional Outcomes of Sleep and Ottawa Sleep Apnea. The most commonly assessed outcomes were sleep quality, daytime function, facial aesthetics, dental function and emotional health. (4) Conclusions: The number of variables that can be evaluated from a patient’s perspective are endless, as are the tools available to assess them. Not all of these tools, which are generally questionnaires, assess all the various outcomes, and some do not compare the pre- and post-surgical situations. Most of them are generic and lack specificity for obstructive sleep apnea.
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 | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".