ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Sex-difference in chewing difficulty and the risk of obstructive sleep apnea among middle-aged and older adults.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChewing difficulty may reflect orofacial factors linked to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) risk, yet evidence remains limited, especially regarding sex differences. This study examined the association between perceived chewing difficulty and OSA risk according to sex.
methodsThe study used five-year (2019-2023) data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, including 16,105 participants aged ≥ 40 years (6,965 males and 9,140 females). Chewing difficulty was assessed on a five-level scale, and OSA risk was determined using the STOP-Bang questionnaire. A significant interaction between sex and chewing difficulty (p = 0.0387) in the model prompted sex-stratified analyses. Multivariable and multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsAmong participants, 62.7% of males and 18.5% of females were classified as having middle-to-high risk of OSA. In adjusted models, chewing difficulty was significantly associated with higher OSA risk (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.11-1.48) in females but not in males, with stronger associations observed at higher OSA risk levels (middle-risk, OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09-1.46; high-risk, OR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.09-3.18). This association persisted when chewing difficulty was analyzed as a graded variable, showing a trend of increasing association with greater severity (p < 0.0001 for trend).
conclusionsIn females, higher levels of chewing difficulty were associated with increased OSA risk. These findings suggest that chewing difficulty could be explored as a potential factor in identifying individuals at higher risk of OSA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.