. 2016 Apr 6;45:23. doi: 10.1186/s40463-016-0136-4

Table 1.

CPAP versus surgery comparisons

First author - year	EBM rating	Study design	Treatment groups	Study findings	Study limitations/issues
Woodson 2003	1	RCT	nCPAP vs. RFTR vs. sham RFTR	Relative to sham Rx, rxn time & fastest rxn time both improved post-RFTR (p = 0.03 & 0.02) but not on CPAP.	Very poor CPAP complance (~16 h/week);
Woodson 2003	1	RCT	nCPAP vs. RFTR vs. sham RFTR	ESS ↓ similarly with RFTR & CPAP (−2.1 vs. −2.3, p = 0.005 & 0.02). SNORE25 score ↓ w/both (p < 0.001 vs. 0.005)	Different # of Rx sessions in RFTR (4.5) vs. sham RFTR (2.9) groups
Ceylan 2009	3	nonRCT	TC-RFTR vs. nCPAP	Both RFTR & CPAP → ↓AHI (28.5 → 15.7 vs 29.6 → 16.1, both p < 0.001; NS); ↓ESS (11.1 → 8.4, p = 0.003 vs 10.8 → 8.2, p = 0.003; NS);	Non-random allocation to Rx/potential selection bias;
Ceylan 2009	3	nonRCT	TC-RFTR vs. nCPAP	↓CT90 (15.2 → 11.1 % vs 14.3 → 10.7 %, both p < 0.001; NS); & ↑LSAT (88.4 → 93.5, p = 0.03 vs 86.8 → 94.6 %, p < 0.001, NS). 53.8 vs. 52.4 % responders	Compliance with CPAP not reported
Weaver 2004	1	pop. survey	UPPP ± TE ± SP ± other vs. CPAP	1339/18,754 (7.1 %) died w/ CPAP vs. 71/2072 (3.4 %) post-op. Adjusting for age, gender, race, year of Rx & co-morbidities,	Retrospective analysis; potential confounders missing
Weaver 2004	1	pop. survey	UPPP ± TE ± SP ± other vs. CPAP	MR ↑ 31 % (95 % CI 3–67 %) w/CPAP (p = 0.03)	(e.g., severity of OSA, overall health status)