ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
The effect of bilevel ventilation or modified continuous positive airway pressure on treatment adherence in adults with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Modified continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) modalities providing pressure support (bilevel PAP (BPAP) or expiratory pressure relief algorithms (EPRAs)) are routinely used for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment, despite little evidence of increased adherence and improved downstream outcomes. An updated, comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of pressure support on adherence is needed. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov and major abstract repositories were searched from database inception until 4/7/2026 for randomized and non-randomized control trials of varying design assessing the effect of pressure support (BPAP, EPRA, or both) on adherence (primary outcome) vs. CPAP in adults with OSA and in those exhibiting CPAP intolerance (exploratory). Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions assessed potential causes of heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined via Eggers' test. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) changes from baseline, residual apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) and leak (secondary outcomes) were also analysed when available. GRADE was used for certainty of evidence (CoE) rating. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251086824). Findings: In twenty-one studies (N = 1462 participants), pressure support did not affect adherence vs. CPAP (mean difference [95% CI]: 0.21 [-0.01, 0.44] h/night, P = 0.06; heterogeneity = 45%; CoE: very-low-to-moderate). BPAP had a larger effect amongst those exhibiting PAP intolerance (0.68 [0.14, 1.23] h/night, P = 0.01), but CoE was very-low. Longer follow-up duration was associated with decreasing adherence to pressure support vs. CPAP (-0.18 [-0.36, -0.03] h/night per additional trimester beyond 3 months, P = 0.03). There was no difference in ESS and residual AHI between interventions, but leak was reduced on pressure support (CoE: low-to-moderate). No publication bias was detected for any outcome. Interpretation: Pressure support yields similar adherence and residual AHI to CPAP. Given increased research and development demands and device cost, its use in OSA is not supported. Future work will need to clarify the exact role of pressure support in patients intolerant to CPAP. Funding: None.
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.