Management of primary snoring in adults: A scoping review examining interventions, outcomes and instruments used to assess clinical effects

IF 11.2 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Sleep Medicine Reviews Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1016/j.smrv.2024.101963
Chidsanu Changsiripun , Naricha Chirakalwasan , Sofia Dias , Catriona McDaid
{"title":"Management of primary snoring in adults: A scoping review examining interventions, outcomes and instruments used to assess clinical effects","authors":"Chidsanu Changsiripun ,&nbsp;Naricha Chirakalwasan ,&nbsp;Sofia Dias ,&nbsp;Catriona McDaid","doi":"10.1016/j.smrv.2024.101963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While various treatment options for primary snoring are available, evidence-based recommendations to determine the optimal intervention remain unestablished. To inform future directions of research to guide clinical decision-making, this scoping review was conducted to map the existing evidence on interventions for primary snoring, the outcomes and instruments used to assess their clinical effects in adults. The feasibility of conducting further systematic reviews and comparing outcomes across these therapies using network meta-analysis was also assessed. Of the 1673 records identified, 38 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria with three-fifths of them being before-after studies. The most common reason for study exclusion was results being reported for patients with primary snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) combined. Interventions were surgical (73 %), behavioural and the use of devices/medications. Twenty-six common outcomes were identified and categorised into six domains. Fifty-nine instruments were used to assess the outcomes and based mainly on non-validated questionnaires. Our findings indicated (1) the need for randomised controlled trials with strict discrimination between patients with primary snoring and OSA, (2) further network meta-analyses using some outcomes is feasible, and (3) a core outcome set to inform standardised reporting for future research should be developed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49513,"journal":{"name":"Sleep Medicine Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sleep Medicine Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1087079224000674","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While various treatment options for primary snoring are available, evidence-based recommendations to determine the optimal intervention remain unestablished. To inform future directions of research to guide clinical decision-making, this scoping review was conducted to map the existing evidence on interventions for primary snoring, the outcomes and instruments used to assess their clinical effects in adults. The feasibility of conducting further systematic reviews and comparing outcomes across these therapies using network meta-analysis was also assessed. Of the 1673 records identified, 38 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria with three-fifths of them being before-after studies. The most common reason for study exclusion was results being reported for patients with primary snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) combined. Interventions were surgical (73 %), behavioural and the use of devices/medications. Twenty-six common outcomes were identified and categorised into six domains. Fifty-nine instruments were used to assess the outcomes and based mainly on non-validated questionnaires. Our findings indicated (1) the need for randomised controlled trials with strict discrimination between patients with primary snoring and OSA, (2) further network meta-analyses using some outcomes is feasible, and (3) a core outcome set to inform standardised reporting for future research should be developed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人原发性打鼾的管理:对干预措施、结果和用于评估临床效果的工具进行范围审查。
虽然针对原发性鼾症有多种治疗方案,但确定最佳干预措施的循证建议仍未确定。为了为未来的研究方向提供信息,以指导临床决策,我们进行了此次范围界定综述,以绘制有关成人原发性鼾症干预措施、结果和用于评估其临床效果的工具的现有证据图。此外,还评估了进一步开展系统性综述和使用网络荟萃分析比较这些疗法的结果的可行性。在已确定的 1673 条记录中,有 38 项干预性研究符合纳入标准,其中五分之三是前后对比研究。排除研究的最常见原因是报告的结果是原发性打鼾和阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)患者的综合结果。干预措施包括手术(73%)、行为干预和使用设备/药物。确定了 26 项常见结果,并将其分为六个领域。用于评估结果的工具有 59 种,主要基于未经验证的调查问卷。我们的研究结果表明:(1)有必要进行随机对照试验,严格区分原发性打鼾和 OSA 患者;(2)使用某些结果进一步进行网络荟萃分析是可行的;(3)应开发一套核心结果,为未来研究的标准化报告提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Sleep Medicine Reviews 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
20.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Sleep Medicine Reviews offers global coverage of sleep disorders, exploring their origins, diagnosis, treatment, and implications for related conditions at both individual and public health levels. Articles comprehensively review clinical information from peer-reviewed journals across various disciplines in sleep medicine, encompassing pulmonology, psychiatry, psychology, physiology, otolaryngology, pediatrics, geriatrics, cardiology, dentistry, nursing, neurology, and general medicine. The journal features narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and editorials addressing areas of controversy, debate, and future research within the field.
期刊最新文献
Social determinants of health at multiple socio-ecological levels and sleep health in adolescents: A scoping review The STOP-Bang questionnaire: A narrative review on its utilization in different populations and settings The association between obstructive sleep apnea and osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Editorial Board Excessive daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea: Indirect treatment comparison of wake-promoting agents in patients adherent/nonadherent to primary OSA therapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1