Cited by 81Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Compliance in sleep apnoea therapy: influence of home care support and pressure mode

Open access
Damjanovic, D., Fluck, A., Bremer, H., Müller-Quernheim, J., Idzko, M., Sorichter, S.·2009·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrom (OSAS) but therapy adherence is often low. The hypothesis that CPAP-adherence and clinical outcomes can be improved by either using an autoadjusting-CPAP (APAP) device or an intensive support was tested. A controlled parallel group study was performed with 100 newly diagnosed OSAS patients, randomised into 4 groups (n = 25 each): standard or intensive support plus either APAP or CPAP. Intensive support included education and monthly home visits for 6 months. Clinical outcome was monitored by polysomnography at CPAP initiation and, after 3 and 9 months, compliance data were downloaded from the CPAP devices. After 9 months, intensively supported patients returned for follow-up in 88 versus 68% in the standard-support-group. Daily usage (mean±sem 5.7±0.2 for intensive support versus 4.6±0.4 h for standard support), percentage of days used (80.4±2.8 versus 57.0±5.9%) and proportion of individual sleep time (80.6±3.2 versus 64.9±6.2%) were also higher. There was no significant difference between APAP or CPAP, (daily usage 5.2±0.4 versus 5.1±0.3 h, percentage of days 67.9±5.0 versus 69.2±4.9%, proportion of sleep time 72.5±5.0%versus 72.1±5.2%, for APAP and CPAP) but retention rate was higher with CPAP. In summary, intensive support after continuous positive airway pressure initiation, rather than the application of autoadjusting-continuous positive airway pressure, increased therapy adherence.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.00023408

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 81

Authors
Damjanovic, D., Fluck, A., Bremer, H., Müller-Quernheim, J., Idzko, M., & Sorichter, S.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Sorichter, S.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2009-01-07
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
804-811
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2097208877
Cited by
81
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, CPAP adherence, paracetamol, home care support, home visits, patient education, therapeutic compliance
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Polysomnography, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

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