A systematic review of the methodology for examining the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea and type two diabetes mellitus.

Background: The association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been explored in various studies, revealing inconsistent correlations that impact therapeutic effectiveness. This heterogeneity in findings requires further exploration to understand what may be driving this. Therefore, this study focuses on systematically reviewing the data, classification of variables, and analytical approach to understand if and how this may be contributing to the mixed findings. This review aims to provide insights that can enhance the generalisability of future research findings. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and specialised sleep journals. The included studies were observational studies published in English from 2011 onwards, involving adults above 18 years with OSA and T2DM or prediabetes, and included a control group. Exclusions were pregnant women, interventional studies, randomised trials, systematic reviews, conference abstracts, case studies and studies without a control group or only with descriptive analysis. Results: We reviewed 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Among cohort studies, 54% did not report attrition rates, and 52% did not detail methods for handling missing data in all studies. Nine studies (39%) predominantly included male participants. Objective measures were prevalent in assessing OSA, with 11 using home portable sleep monitors and four employing clinic polysomnography, though only three validated home sleep monitors. The apnea-hypopnea index was commonly used to define OSA severity, with six studies adapting the American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. Two studies utilised validated self-report questionnaires for OSA symptoms. T2DM diagnosis methods varied, with 17 studies using blood samples, two relying only on self-reporting, and four confirmed diagnosis via medical records. Conclusions: The variability in sample characteristics, data quality, and variable coding may contribute to the mixed finding. This review identifies gaps in using the standardised measures, reporting attrition rates, handling missing data, and including both sexes. Addressing these issues is crucial to enhancing future research generalisability. Standardising diagnostic criteria, considering clinical and sociodemographic factors, and ensuring inclusivity in study populations are essential for advancing understanding and treatment strategies for OSA and T2DM. Protocol registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023397547.