↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review: the influence of nasal obstruction on sleep apnea

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Systematic review: the influence of nasal obstruction on sleep apnea
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.05.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debora Petrungaro Migueis, Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler, Lucas Neves de Andrade Lemes, Chirlene Santos Souza Moreira, Lucia Joffily, Maria Helena de Araujo-Melo

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is a common disorder that can lead to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as to metabolic, neurological, and behavioral consequences. It is currently believed that nasal obstruction compromises the quality of sleep when it results in breathing disorders and fragmentation of sleep. However, recent studies have failed to objectively associate sleep quality and nasal obstruction. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the influence of nasal obstruction on OSAS and polysomnographic indices associated with respiratory events. Eleven original articles published from 2003 to 2013 were selected, which addressed surgical and non-surgical treatment for nasal obstruction, performing polysomnography type 1 before and after the intervention. In most trials, nasal obstruction was not related to the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), indicating no improvement in OSAS with reduction in nasal resistance. However, few researchers evaluated other polysomnography indices, such as the arousal index and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep percentage. These could change with nasal obstruction, since it is possible that the nasal obstruction does not completely block the upper airways, but can increase negative intrathoracic pressure, leading to sleep fragmentation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 38 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 47%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 36 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 October 2018.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#501
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,258
of 400,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 400,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.