↓ Skip to main content

Obstructive Sleep Apnea With or Without Excessive Daytime Sleepiness: Clinical and Experimental Data-Driven Phenotyping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Obstructive Sleep Apnea With or Without Excessive Daytime Sleepiness: Clinical and Experimental Data-Driven Phenotyping
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergio Garbarino, Egeria Scoditti, Paola Lanteri, Luana Conte, Nicola Magnavita, Domenico M. Toraldo

Abstract

Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a serious and prevalent medical condition with major consequences for health and safety. Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a common-but not universal-accompanying symptom. The purpose of this literature analysis is to understand whether the presence/absence of EDS is associated with different physiopathologic, prognostic, and therapeutic outcomes in OSA patients. Methods: Articles in English published in PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE between January 2000 and June 2017, focusing on no-EDS OSA patients, were critically reviewed. Results: A relevant percentage of OSA patients do not complain of EDS. EDS is a significant and independent predictor of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is associated with all-cause mortality and an increased risk of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Male gender, younger age, high body mass index, are predictors of EDS. The positive effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on blood pressure, insulin resistance, fatal and non-fatal CVD, and endothelial dysfunction risk factors have been demonstrated in EDS-OSA patients, but results are inconsistent in no-EDS patients. The most sustainable cause of EDS is nocturnal hypoxemia and alterations of sleep architecture, including sleep fragmentation. These changes are less evident in no-EDS patients that seem less susceptible to the cortical effects of apneas. Conclusions: There is no consensus if we should consider OSA as a single disease with different phenotypes with or without EDS, or if there are different diseases with different genetic/epigenetic determinants, pathogenic mechanisms, prognosis, and treatment.The small number of studies focused on this issue indicates the need for further research in this area. Clinicians must carefully assess the presence or absence of EDS and decide accordingly the treatment. This approach could improve combination therapy targeted to a patient's specific pathology to enhance both efficacy and long-term adherence to OSA treatment and significantly reduce the social, economic, and health negative impact of OSA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 48 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 56 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,115,727
of 25,934,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,158
of 14,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,072
of 344,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#150
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,934,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 344,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.