Table 4 Effect sizes on lowest O2 saturation among the interventions.

From: Comparison of transoral robotic surgery with other surgeries for obstructive sleep apnea

Author (year)

Intervention

n

Weight (%)

SMD

SE

95% CI

p

Hwang (2019)11

TORS

16

17.18

0.81

0.35

0.07 to 1.54

 

Lan (2019)13

TORS

16

16.85

1.56

0.39

0.75 to 2.37

 

Huntley (2019)14

TORS

24

17.76

0.36

0.28

 − 0.21 to 0.93

 

Yu (2019)15

TORS

20

17.21

0.23

0.35

 − 0.50 to 0.96

 

Aynacı (2018)16

TORS

20

12.75

6.52

0.79

4.92 to 8.13

 

Folk (2017)17

TORS

45

18.25

0.51

0.21

0.09 to 0.93

 

Total random effect

TORS

141

100

1.43

0.49

0.45 to 2.41

0.004

Heterogeneity test

Q = 62.50, df = 9, I2 = 92%

0.001

Hwang (2019)11

CTBR

29

60.36

1.06

0.27

0.50 to 1.61

 

Lan (2019)13

CTBR

17

39.64

0.57

0.34

 − 0.12 to 1.27

 

Total fixed effect

CTBR

46

100

0.86

0.21

0.44 to 1.29

0.001

Heterogeneity test

Q = 1.22, df = 1, I2 = 18.32%

0.26

Huntley (2019)14

UAS

76

74.74

1.33

0.17

0.98 to 1.68

 

Yu (2019)15

UAS

29

25.26

0.978

0.30

0.35 to 1.59

 

Total fixed effect

UAS

105

100

1.24

0.15

0.93 to 1.54

0.001

Heterogeneity test

Q = 1.22, df = 1, I2 = 18.32%

0.31

Aynacı (2018)16

Radiofrequency

20

NA

2.57

0.42

1.71 to 3.43

 

Folk (2017)17

EPMG

16

NA

0.32

0.34

 − 0.38 to 1.02

 
  1. SMD standardized mean difference, SE standard error, CI confidence intervals, TORS transoral robotic surgery, CTBS coblation tongue base resection, UAS upper airway stimulation, EPMG endoscopic partial midline glossectomy.
Back to article page