CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

Interventions for obstructive sleep apnea in children: A systematic review

Kuhle, Stefan, Urschitz, Michael S., Eitner, Steffen, Poets, Christian F.·2009·Sleep Medicine Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.smrv.2008.07.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by habitual snoring, heavy breathing, sleep-related hypoxia and arousals from sleep, and is found in approximately 3% of children.Objective To review the efficacy of medical, behavioral, mechanical and surgical interventions in improving OSA in children.Methods Bibliographic databases, relevant conference proceedings and trial registers were searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing interventions in children with objectively diagnosed OSA (as per polysomnography; apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI) > or = 1/h) were considered.Results The search identified 1690 potentially relevant studies. The five trials that met the inclusion criteria investigated seven different interventions (intranasal steroids, adenotonsillectomy, maxillary distraction, temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation, oral appliances, continuous and bilevel positive airway pressure therapy). Intranasal steroids had a significant advantage over placebo in decreasing the AHI (one study). Temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation and adenotonsillectomy were equally effective in reducing the RDI (one study). Continuous and bilevel positive airway pressure therapy was equally effective in reducing the AHI (one study). There was insufficient evidence to support the use of oral appliances.Conclusions Despite a broad array of treatment options for OSA, there is limited evidence to support their use. More research is needed before general recommendations can be made.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2008.07.006

Cites

32 of 32 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kuhle, S., Urschitz, M. S., Eitner, S., & Poets, C. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University Children's Hospital Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Urschitz, Michael S.
ORCID
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
123-131
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.smrv.2008.07.006
OpenAlex
W2064559759
Cited by
68
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, pediatric sleep apnea, children, adenotonsillectomy, intranasal corticosteroids, maxillary distraction, radiofrequency ablation, oral appliances, continuous positive airway pressure, bilevel positive airway pressure, apnea-hypopnea index, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Child, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Polysomnography, 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