Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 2;2019(12):CD003531. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003531.pub4

Teschler 2000.

Methods Randomised, double‐blind, cross‐over study
Two‐factor repeated measures analysis of variance (AVOVA). Order of testing (fixed CPAP versus auto‐CPAP first) taken as one fixed factor, mode of treatment (fixed CPAP versus auto‐CPAP as second factor)
Participants N = 10 participants (10 M). Mean age 52 years; AHI 52.9
Inclusion criteria: > 20 AHI, residence < 50 km from clinic and newly diagnosed with OSA
Exclusion criteria: co‐existing airways disease (asthma/COPD), rhinitis or cardiac failure
Interventions Auto‐CPAP versus fixed CPAP. No washout period
Study duration: 2 x 8‐week treatment periods
Outcomes

  1. Machine usage (average hours used and % days CPAP used)

  2. AHI

  3. Tolerability (leak > 0.4 L/sec)

  4. Treatment pressure
Funding & conflicts of interest statements Not provided
Notes —
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Described as randomised; no other information available
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Information not available
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 Machine usage, symptoms, quality of life, withdrawal, adverse effects Low risk Quote: "The staff were blinded as to whether the machine was in auto or conventional mode. Patients were not told in which mode the machine was operating."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 AHI, blood pressure, treatment pressure Low risk These outcomes unlikely to be affected by awareness of treatment group.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Machine usage, symptoms, quality of life, withdrawal, adverse effects Low risk Study had double‐blind design.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 AHI, blood pressure, treatment pressure Low risk These outcomes unlikely to be affected by awareness of treatment group.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All participants completed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk No concerns identified