Efficacy comparison of aerobic exercise, combined exercise, oropharyngeal exercise and respiratory muscle training for obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has become a global health concern. Aerobic exercise (AE), combined exercise (CE), respiratory muscle training (RMT), and oropharyngeal exercise (OE) can improve OSA to some extent.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of these four interventions in patients with OSA through a more comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Web of Science, PubMed and Embase databases were searched for observational studies reporting AE, CE, RMT, and OE for the treatment of OSA. RevMan software (version 5.3) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literatures. Network meta-analysis was performed by using STATA software (version 14.0) with "network" command. The node-splitting analysis was performed for inconsistency test. Sensitivity analysis was assessed. A funnel plot and Egger's test were used to investigate publication bias.

RESULTS

Based on 24 studies involving a total of 956 patients with OSA, AE, CE and OE were found to have significant effects on Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), while RMT had a significant effect solely on PSQI and ESS. In the network meta-analysis, CE was considered most likely to be the effective intervention in improving AHI (SUCRA: 87.8 %), and OE was likely to be the best intervention in improving PSQI (SUCRA: 75.8 %) and ESS (SUCRA: 94.9 %).

CONCLUSIONS

AE, CE and OE all improved AHI, PSQI and ESS, but there was no significant difference in the improvement effect among these three interventions. Considering the complexity of the intervention process and the differences in effects, it is recommended that the effect size and applicability of various interventions should be comprehensively considered when choosing specific interventions. The findings need to be further confirmed based on larger and more rigorous randomized controlled trials so that clinicians could develop better protocols for patients with different needs.