Cited by 371Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Multisite Randomized Trial of Portable Sleep Studies and Positive Airway Pressure Autotitration Versus Laboratory-Based Polysomnography for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: The HomePAP Study

Open access

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To test the utility of an integrated clinical pathway for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment using portable monitoring devices. DESIGN: Randomized, open-label, parallel group, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial comparing home-based, unattended portable monitoring for diagnosis and autotitrating CPAP (autoPAP) compared with in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) and CPAP titration. SETTING: Seven American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) accredited sleep centers. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive new referrals, age 18 yr or older with high probability of moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15) identified by clinical algorithm and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥ 12. INTERVENTIONS: Home-based level 3 testing followed by 1 wk of autoPAP with a fixed pressure CPAP prescription based on the 90% pressure from autotitration of PAP therapy (autoPAP) device (HOME) compared with attended, in-laboratory studies (LAB). MEASUREMENTS: CPAP acceptance, time to treatment, adherence at 1 and 3 mo; changes in ESS, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Of 373 participants, approximately one-half in each study arm remained eligible (AHI ≥ 15) to continue in the study. At 3 mo, PAP usage (nightly time at pressure) was 1 hr greater: 4.7 ± 2.1 hr (HOME) compared with 3.7 ± 2.4 hr (LAB). Adherence (percentage of night used ≥ 4 hr) was 12.6% higher: 62.8 ± 29.2% compared with 49.4 ± 36.1% in the HOME versus LAB. Acceptance of PAP therapy, titration pressures, effective titrations, time to treatment, and ESS score change did not differ between arms. CONCLUSIONS: A home-based strategy for diagnosis and treatment compared with in-laboratory PSG was not inferior in terms of acceptance, adherence, time to treatment, and functional improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT: 00642486.

Overview

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 · 10.5665/sleep.1870

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Esparis, 2011, Accreditation Statistics, Report to the Board of Directors, American Academy of Sleep Medicine (personal communication to JA Barrett)
  2. CMS Revises Sleep Medicine CPT Codes, 2011, AASM Special Update
  3. Rosen, 2010, A multi-site randomized rrial of portable monitoring and positive airway pressure autotitration versus laboratory-based polysomnography for thediagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnea: HomePAP study, Sleep, 33, A173
  4. Iber, 2007, Quan, SF for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, The AASM Manual for Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specification

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 371

Metadata

Authors
Rosen, C. L., Auckley, D., Benca, R., Foldvary-Schaefer, N., Iber, C., Kapur, V., Rueschman, M., Zee, P., & Redline, S.
Affiliations
  • University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (US)
  • MetroHealth Medical Center (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Rosen, Carol L.
Venue
Sleep
Published
2012-06
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
757-767
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
OpenAlex
W2170910182
Cited by
367
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 8
FWCI
19.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SLEEP (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Sleep Medicine Foundation (38-PM-07)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › 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, home sleep testing, home sleep monitoring, auto-titrating CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure, polysomnography, CPAP adherence, CPAP acceptance, sleep apnea diagnosis, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, time to treatment, apnea-hypopnea index, sleep apnea treatment outcomes
MeSH terms
Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Treatment Outcome, 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