Cited by 15Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchTemporomandibular Joint DisordersSleep and related disorders

Mandibular advancement splint (MAS) therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea—an overview and quality assessment of systematic reviews

Johal, Ama, Fleming, Padhraig S., Manek, Seema, Marinho, Valeria C. C.·2015·Sleep and Breathing

Abstract

Background To conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews concerning management of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) with mandibular advancement splint (MAS) and assess their methodological quality.Method PubMed and relevant Cochrane Library databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA) searches were performed (09.13) to identify systematic reviews investigating the response of adults with OSAHS to MAS therapy. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, a validated tool for assessing quality.Results Eight systematic reviews, four incorporating meta-analyses, were identified evaluating both objective and subjective outcome measures. The effectiveness of MAS therapy was compared to no treatment (n = 1), non-active appliance (n = 6), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP; n = 5), surgical intervention (n = 3) and a different MAS intervention (n = 4). The quality of the reviews was variable (median = 7, range = 3 to 11), with only two of higher quality (AMSTAR scores >10), one of them a Cochrane review. In this high quality and current review, the overall (pooled) effects for comparison of MAS therapy with inactive appliances, revealed significant benefits of MAS therapy in terms of both daytime sleepiness and objective apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) outcomes.Conclusion In general, the results from the higher quality reviews concerning the effectiveness of MAS therapy for OSAHS highlight the ability of the intervention to improve OSAHS. Current reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (e.g. PRISMA) and sources of high-quality existing reviews should be closely followed to enhance the validity and relevance of future reviews.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11325-015-1148-4

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johal, A., Fleming, P. S., Manek, S., & Marinho, V. C. C.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Johal, Ama
Venue
Sleep and Breathing
Published
2015-03-17
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
1101-1108
ISSN
  • 1520-9512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1709
OpenAlex
W1977227406
Cited by
15
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep And Breathing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
mandibular advancement device, obstructive sleep apnea, sleep apnea treatment, oral appliance therapy, methodological quality of systematic reviews, AMSTAR, continuous positive airway pressure, apnea-hypopnea index, daytime sleepiness, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Disorders of Excessive Somnolence, Occlusal Splints, Polysomnography, Mandibular Advancement, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review