Cited by 250Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Positional Treatment vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Patients With Positional Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and positional treatment in the management of positional obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), using objective outcome measures. Design A prospective, randomized, single blind crossover comparison of CPAP and positional treatment for 2 weeks each. Setting A university teaching hospital. Patients Thirteen patients with positional OSA, aged (mean+/-SD) 51+/-9 years, with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 17+/-8. Measurements (1) Daily Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores; (2) overnight polysomnography, an objective assessment of sleep quality and AHI; (3) maintenance of wakefulness testing; (4) psychometric test battery; (5) mood scales; (6) quality-of-life questionnaires; and (7) individual patient's treatment preference. Results Positional treatment was highly effective in reducing time spent supine (median, 0; range, 0 to 32 min). The AHI was lower (mean difference, 6.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2 to 10.2; p = 0.007), and the minimum oxygen saturation was higher (4%; 95% CI, 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) on CPAP as compared with positional treatment. There was no significant difference, however, in sleep architecture, Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores, maintenance of wakefulness testing sleep latency, psychometric test performance, mood scales, or quality-of-life measures. Conclusion Positional treatment and CPAP have similar efficacy in the treatment of patients with positional OSA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1378/chest.115.3.771

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

3 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jokic, R., Klimaszewski, A., Crossley, M., Sridhar, G., & Fitzpatrick, M. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • University of Regina (CA)
Corresponding author
Fitzpatrick, Michael F.
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-03
Volume
115
Issue
3
Pages
771-781
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079982868
Cited by
250
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CHEST 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
positional obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure, supine sleeping, apnea-hypopnea index, oxygen saturation, daytime sleepiness, sleep quality, quality of life, treatment preferences
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Posture, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, Trail Making Test, Single-Blind Method, Supine Position, Prone Position, Cross-Over Studies

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