The Effectiveness Of Oral Appliance In Comparison With Continuous Positive Airway Pressure In The Treatment Of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea: A Randomised Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satu kajian klinikal rawak berbentuk selari telah dijalankan di Institut Perubatan & Pergigian Termaju (IPPT) Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) untuk menentukan keberkesanan aplians oral (OA) berbanding dengan tekanan udara positif berterusan (CPAP) dalam rawatan apnoea tidur obstruktif. Pesakit yang dirujuk dari Klinik Telinga, Hidung & Tekak telah disaring untuk kelayakan menyertai kajian. Selepas mengambilkira semua kriteria kemasukan dan pengecualian, seramai 40 orang pesakit telah diambil dan dibahagikan secara rawak kepada dua kumpulan rawatan; 19 orang pesakit dalam kumpulan CPAP dan 21 pesakit dalam kumpulan OA. Namun, seorang orang pesakit daripada setiap kumpulan tidak meneruskan kajian, menjadikan jumlah keseluruhan peserta kajian seramai hanya 38 orang, 18 orang pesakit dalam kumpulan CPAP dan 20 pesakit dalam kumpulan OA. Ujikaji telah mengambil masa selama sebulan yang mana Indeks Apnoea/Hypopnea, ketepuan oksigen nokturnal minima (MinO2) dan ketepuan oksigen purata (MeanO2) telah direkodkan sebelum dan selepas rawatan bagi kedua-dua kumpulan pesakit dengan menggunakan polisomnografi sepanjang malam. Skala Mengantuk Epworth (ESS) dan Indeks Kualiti Kehidupan Apnoea Tidur Calgary (SAQLI) versi Bahasa Melayu telah diberikan kepada pesakit sebelum dan selepas rawatan, masing-masing untuk menilai perubahan-perubahan dari segi rasa mengantuk pesakit pada siang hari serta kualiti kehidupan yang berhubungkait dengan kesihatan. \n \nA parallel design randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Advanced Medical and Dental Institute (AMDI) Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) to determine the effectiveness of oral appliances (OA) in comparison to the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea. Patients referred from the Ear, Nose and Throat clinic were screened for eligibility to participate in the trial. After considering all the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 patients were recruited and were randomised by an online randomization software available on (www.randomization.com) which was used to produce a randomization plan. This trial was blinded and patients were randomised into two groups by a nurse opening a sealed envelope that had been prepared earlier by the researcher which contained either the letter A or B. As a result 19 patients in the CPAP group and 21 patients in the OA group were recruited. However, 1 patient from each group did not continue the trial, leaving only 38 study participants in total, 18 patients in the CPAP group and 20 patients in the OA group. The trial period was one month. Apnoea/Hypopnea index (AHI), minimum nocturnal oxygen saturation (MinO2) and mean oxygen saturation (MeanO2) were recorded before and after treatment for patients in both groups by overnight polysomnography. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Malay version of Calgary Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI) were given to the patients before and after treatment to assess the changes in patient’s daytime sleepiness and health-related quality of life respectively. \n
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".