↓ Skip to main content

Oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
251 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005520.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando R Carvalho, Débora A Lentini-Oliveira, Lucila BF Prado, Gilmar F Prado, Luciane BC Carvalho

Abstract

Apnoea is a breathing disorder marked by the absence of airflow at the nose or mouth. In children, risk factors include adenotonsillar hypertrophy, obesity, neuromuscular disorders and craniofacial anomalies. The most common treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) in childhood is adeno-tonsillectomy. This approach is limited by its surgical risks, mostly in children with comorbidities and, in some patients, by recurrence that can be associated with craniofacial problems. Oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances have been used for patients who have OSAS and craniofacial anomalies because they hold the lower jaw (mandible) forwards which potentially enlarges the upper airway and increases the upper airspace, improving the respiratory function. To assess the effects of oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea in children. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 7 April 2016); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 7 April 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 7 April 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 7 April 2016); LILACS BIREME (from 1982 to 7 April 2016); BBO BIREME (from 1986 to 7 April 2016) and SciELO Web of Science (from 1997 to 7 April 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials on 7 April 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing all types of oral and functional orthopaedic appliances with placebo or no treatment, in children 15 years old or younger. reduction of apnoea to less than one episode per hour. dental and skeletal relationship, sleep parameters improvement, cognitive and phonoaudiological function, behavioural problems, quality of life, side effects (tolerability) and economic evaluation. Two review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted for additional information. We calculated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for all important dichotomous outcomes. We assessed the quality of the evidence of included studies using GRADEpro software. The initial search identified 686 trials. Only one trial, reporting the results from a total of 23 children and comparing an oral appliance to no treatment, was suitable for inclusion in the review. The trial assessed apnoea-hypopnoea, daytime symptoms (sleepiness, irritability, tiredness, school problems, morning headache, thirstiness in the morning, oral breathing and nasal stuffiness) and night-time symptoms (habitual snoring, restless sleep and nightmares measured by questionnaire). Results were inconsistent across outcomes measures and time points. The evidence was considered very low quality. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in children. Oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances may be considered in specified cases as an auxiliary in the treatment of children who have craniofacial anomalies which are risk factors for apnoea.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 246 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 22%
Student > Bachelor 31 12%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 12%
Student > Postgraduate 27 11%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 38 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 12%
Psychology 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 50 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2020.
All research outputs
#539,064
of 15,526,302 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,431
of 11,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,722
of 270,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,526,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.