Reviewing the Systematic Reviews in OSA Surgery

Abstract

Objective There is an extensive amount of literature on surgeries as treatment for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome on adults. Previous systematic reviews have been performed to summarize the outcomes for sleep surgeries, with conflicting results. The objective of this study was to critically evaluate these systematic reviews to provide an overview of their quality, strengths, and conclusions. Data Sources MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched from inception to April 2013. Review Methods An overview of systematic reviews was undertaken. Studies included in this review are the systematic reviews whose primary objective was to evaluate the outcomes of sleep apnea surgery on adults. The methodological quality of the studies was analyzed with AMSTAR checklist, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE assessment tool. Primary outcome measures assessed the effect of surgery on snoring, sleepiness, and the apnea-hypopnea index. Results A total of 11 studies were included in this study, and the pooled overview includes 378 studies. The systematic reviews were mostly graded as low quality using the GRADE tool and low to moderate according to the AMSTAR checklist. Outcome for apnea-hypopnea index demonstrated substantial variation leading to conflicting results. Despite a high amount of heterogeneity, outcomes for sleepiness and snoring demonstrated significant improvement across included reviews. Conclusions Although obstructive sleep apnea surgery is associated with improved outcomes in most studies, the level and quality of evidence reviews requires improvement.