| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sleep apnea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sleep apnea.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sleep apnea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
There is a recent meta-analysis that provides more evidence backing up the CPAP treatment: "It has been found through meta-analysis that continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP) significantly improves patient's with obstructive sleep apnea measure of sleepiness. CPAP seems to benefit patients with more severe sleep apnea the most." (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy for Treating gess in a Diverse Population With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Results of a Meta-analysis) Mktayloe (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2015
This is an extremely long article, and I basically had to read through the entire article to find the section I wanted, central sleep apnea. Having a header "classification" that has no subsection when there are three main types is not helpful. It's much better to be able to see central sleep apnea directly in the contents, and it also makes it possible to link to this section when relevant, rather than the entire classification section alone. Readers have the option of collapsing contents boxes if they don't like them, or seperating the article into separate ones. In this case, with a three-header limit, the relevant material is simply hidden and hard to find, when it is one of the major subjects. Another option is simply removing "classification" entirely, since the header itself is content free--it has no text of its own, just subsections. Hence I am restoring the 4-level headers at this point. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet review from 2009 says[1] "In randomised trials, treating OSA with continuous positive airway pressure lowered blood pressure, attenuated signs of early atherosclerosis, and, in patients with heart failure, improved cardiac function. Current data therefore suggest that OSA increases the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, and that its treatment has the potential to diminish such risk."
The 2015 review says "CPAP is highly effective in controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and reducing the clinical consequences of sleep apnoea and we must consider it as a first-line option."[2]
IMO this supports "With proper use, CPAP improves outcomes and appears to decreases the risk of death due to heart disease." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to add right now, but looks like Oropharyngeal Exercises [1] might merit a section. -Pengortm (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also might merit inclusion, but don't have the time to properly integrate right now: http://dx.doi.org/10.5665/sleep.1422 - Pengortm (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
