Hello Guest,Welcome to Apnea Board !
As a guest, you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.
To post a message, you must create a free account using a valid email address. Login or Create an Account
[News] Washington Post Article
09-08-2016, 08:59 PM
I'd guess it is not as black and white as putting a number of hours on it. The more you use it, theoretically the more the benefit. You also have have all kinds of variables that come into play as well. Age, weight, health, untreated AHI, treated AHI, I could go on forever. It's a fuzzy thing. Don't know how deep down the rabbit hole these researchers went, but it sounds like they only stuck there tow over the edge ...
(09-08-2016, 08:43 PM)stephengreene Wrote: Is there some scientific study that indicates 6 hours will provide benefit?
This study of positive airway pressure for 3.3 hour only confirms what I have red in numerous other studies that 4 hours per night is the minimum use to see any benefit.
I have attached links to studies that show some benefit @ >4 hours and the more benefits with longer use @ 5 hours and 6 hours. I believe there is plenty of empirical evidence that the formula (4 hours a night for 21 our of 30 days) was arrived at scientifically, and this study posted by sleepster and the one last month in thread
just reinforces the formula as the minimum use for effective therapy
it'll take more than a doctor to prescribe a remedy
Observations and recommendations communicated here are the perceptions of the writer and should not be misconstrued as medical advice.
09-08-2016, 10:10 PM
(09-08-2016, 07:59 PM)stephengreene Wrote: I understand that 3.3 hours of CPAP usage provides no benefit.
The study demonstrates that 3.3 hours of use is not enough, statistically, to show a decreased risk of heart attack.
Quote:Does anyone know what is the minimum usage that will provide a benefit?
A series of studies might show that there is a minimum amount of time needed to achieve, statistically, a reduced risk of heart attack. Any amount of time over that might then show a further reduction, statistically, in the risk of a heart attack.
But here's the thing. Why would anyone be interested in reducing their risk by anything less than the maximum amount possible? And how does one get that maximum reduction in the likelihood of a heart attack? By using the machine every time you sleep, all the time you're sleeping.
Apnea Board Moderator
INFORMATION ON APNEA BOARD FORUMS OR ON APNEABOARD.COM SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS MEDICAL ADVICE. ALWAYS SEEK THE ADVICE OF A PHYSICIAN BEFORE SEEKING TREATMENT FOR MEDICAL CONDITIONS, INCLUDING SLEEP APNEA. INFORMATION POSTED ON THE APNEA BOARD WEB SITE AND FORUMS ARE PERSONAL OPINION ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY A STATEMENT OF FACT.
09-09-2016, 01:23 AM
Sloppy "journalism" but no worse than what one gets every day on TV news. The sad part is how many people believe TV news.
09-09-2016, 06:14 AM
(09-08-2016, 08:43 PM)stephengreene Wrote: Thanks for the response. Is there some scientific study that indicates 6 hours will provide benefit? Your answer sounds like a "best guess" but it is unclear that there is medical proof to support this. I am coming up to my annual checkup and would hope the results will show some benefit for my efforts. But unclear how to measure that.
Install the Sleepyhead software so you can get a look at your own therapy. You are the one that your treatment is all about. Your Doctor may only look at your average nightly use and your average AHI. Your Doctor may not provide much feedback before moving on to the next patient. If you know what is going on with your treatment you can ask good questions.
Apnea Board Member RobySue has posted a Beginners Guide to Sleepyhead Software here: http://www.apneaboard.com/wiki/index.php...SleepyHead
09-09-2016, 11:50 AM
(09-09-2016, 01:23 AM)GP49 Wrote: Sloppy "journalism" but no worse than what one gets every day on TV news. The sad part is how many people believe TV news.
It is not just sloppy journalism but faulty science spurred on in part by the "publish or perish" attitude common in the scientific community. The supposedly peer reviewed original article was a good example of crap science. The original "scientific" article should never have been written let alone published.
Please excuse my rant but this type of junk makes my blood boil.
|Possibly Related Threads...|
|Your Personal CPAP Success Story - Post Here||SuperSleeper||730||212,061||
01-10-2017, 06:19 AM
Last Post: Etchris
|2015 peer reviewed article comparing a bench test of 11 APAPs||robysue||4||576||
12-06-2016, 07:06 AM
Last Post: cands
|2015 peer reviewed article on how xPAPs score events and auto algorithms respond||robysue||1||212||
12-03-2016, 07:48 PM
Last Post: Perchas
|post a picture||worthog||3||240||
12-02-2016, 07:59 PM
Last Post: pupcamper
|General rule for tweaking pressure - first post||MartinT||7||552||
11-15-2016, 11:59 PM
Last Post: MartinT
|How do I post Sleepyhead Info?||Saskie||8||325||
11-11-2016, 11:30 PM
Last Post: trish6hundred
|1 Month into CPAP - Still Exhausted. What Data to Post?||IMSleeplessInSeattle||21||1,503||
10-01-2016, 12:40 PM
Last Post: TomfromTexas