Cited by 23Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchRespiratory Support and MechanismsSleep and related disorders

Comparison of two in-laboratory titration methods to determine effective pressure levels in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea

Open access
Bureau, M P·2000·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of the sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) conventionally requires a titration procedure in a sleep laboratory. The upper airway has a hysteresis phenomenon which accounts for a decrease in the effective positive pressure level once an initial effective pressure setting has been reached. The aim of this study was to quantify the difference in the initial and final effective pressure settings when the titration sleep study takes into account these possible changes in the effective pressure level. METHODS: Eighty five patients completed the study. During a titration sleep study the pressure was increased by 1 cm H2O in a stepwise fashion until obstructive respiratory events disappeared (effective pressure 1, Peff(1)). The pressure level was then decreased by increments of 1 cm H2O until breathing abnormalities reappeared. At this time pressure was re-increased by increments of 1 cm H(2)O to normalise breathing (Peff(2)). RESULTS: The mean (SD) value of Peff(1) was 9.5 (2.6) cm H2O. The pressure was then reduced during 0.5 (0.6) hours to reach the minimal pressure (7.0 (2.0) cm H2O). The pressure obtained after a downward titration had to be re-increased in 79 patients, the Peff(2) level being significantly lower than Peff(1) (8.9 (2.8) cm H2O, p = 0.0002), mean difference 0.6 (1.5) cm H2O (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.93). CONCLUSION: Attempts to decrease the positive pressure level during conventional determination of the effective pressure level allow a significant decrease in the pressure setting. This should be taken into account in each patient who requires an in-laboratory manual CPAP titration procedure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/thorax.55.9.741

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Split-night titration is not significantly different from full-night titration in subjective sleepiness or adherence over time.

    “Split-night titration, where the first couple of hours of the PSG are for diagnostic purposes and the remainder of the study involves PAP titration, compared to a fullnight titration, is not significantly different in terms of outcomes such as subjective sleepiness or adherence over time.1081–1083”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [1081]

    The Discussion (page not specified) says split-night studies may allow too little time for the paper’s pressure-titration procedure, but it does not compare split-night with full-night titration on subjective sleepiness or adherence over time. Searches for those outcomes and for a split-night/full-night comparison found no passage addressing the claimed outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]20. Ryan PJ, Hilton MF, Boldy DAR, et al. Validation of British Thoracic Society guidelines for the diagnosis of sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome. Thorax 1995;50:972-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bureau, M. P.
Affiliations
Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (CA)
Corresponding author
Bureau, M P
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-09-01
Volume
55
Issue
9
Pages
741-745
ISSN
0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061602644
Cited by
23
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thorax (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, CPAP titration, nasal continuous positive airway pressure, sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Prospective Studies, Sleep Apnea Syndromes

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