4.7 Review

The Association between Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175008

关键词

OSA; IPF; fibrosis; prevalence; comorbidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been increasing in recent years, particularly among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). A systematic review found a significantly higher prevalence of OSA in IPF patients compared to the general population.
The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has greatly increased in recent years. Recent data suggest that severe and moderate forms of OSA affect between 6 and 17% of adults in the general population. Many papers are reporting the significantly increased prevalence of OSA in patients suffering from fibrotic diseases, including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the dependency between IPF and OSA. Due to the lack of papers focusing on IPF among OSA patients, we focused on the prevalence of OSA among IPF patients. In the search strategy, a total of 684 abstracts were identified, 496 after the removal of duplicates. After the screening of titles and abstracts, 31 studies were qualified for further full-text analysis for eligibility criteria. The final analysis was performed on 614 IPF patients from 18 studies, which met inclusion criteria. There were 469 (76.38%) IPF patients with OSA and 145 (23.62%) without. The mean age varied from 60.9 +/- 8.1 up to 70.3 +/- 7.9. The obtained prevalence was 76.4 (95% CI: 72.9-79.7) and 75.7 (95% CI: 70.1-80.9) for fixed and random effects, respectively. The median prevalence of OSA among non-IPF patients for all the ethnics groups included in this study was 16,4% (IQR: 3.4%-26.8%). The study provides strong evidence for the increased prevalence of OSA in IPF patients when comparing with the general OSA prevalence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据