Digeridoo's helping apnea

DreamDiver wrote:Didjeridoo's sold at the DME?
How much will your insurance pay?

I think we have a lateral sales possibility here.

(Not making fun of didjeridoo's -- I can just picture
musical instruments at the display window of the DME.)

Great, now I need a script to buy one! It probably even has to specify which key

I going to suggest the fully data capable one, though, and be sure to get one that fits...

DreamStalker wrote:I play my PAP machine every night. I think there are lots more peer reviewed studies on the success of blowing into a PAP machine to treat apnea than there are of blowing into a hollowed out stick.

But what do I know? ... I'm just blow hard PAPer

I wonder how may pairs of panty hose RG would need to control the leaks on that stick. It might work better if you stuck a XPAP hose in the end of it too.

I wonder why they did the testing with people with AHI's of 15 to 30, instead of people with real Apnea problems. I tested AHI of 150, probably because our Apneas was so bad, that we really need treatment. Jim

The best part of the test was the U.S. taxpayers didn't have to pay for the testing. We spent our money finding out how mice reproduce in space.

_________________

CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): hose, AHI

Goofproof wrote:The best part of the test was the U.S. taxpayers didn't have to pay for the testing. We spent our money finding out how mice reproduce in space.

Hmmm ... as someone who has never reproduced offspring, that study may come in handy for me ... got a link?

I saw a device somewhere on line that was a breath trainer, supposed to strengthen the lungs. It made me wonder if it would strengthen the mouth/throat muscles in a useful way too.

Goofproof wrote: I wonder why they did the testing with people with AHI's of 15 to 30, instead of people with real Apnea problems. I tested AHI of 150, probably because our Apneas was so bad, that we really need treatment. Jim

I really hope you were joking about that, goofproof. I still have real apnea problems, even though I had an AHI of "only" 19. This might make people new to this apnea world that have mild or moderate apena think they could stop fighting with the machine and stop using it, and not have to worry about dying from apnea complications because theirs "isn't that bad."



Pam

WearyOne wrote:

Goofproof wrote: I wonder why they did the testing with people with AHI's of 15 to 30, instead of people with real Apnea problems. I tested AHI of 150, probably because our Apneas was so bad, that we really need treatment. Jim

I really hope you were joking about that, goofproof. I still have real apnea problems, even though I had an AHI of "only" 19. This might make people new to this apnea world that have mild or moderate apena think they could stop fighting with the machine and stop using it, and not have to worry about dying from apnea complications because theirs "isn't that bad."
Pam

It's the O2 destats that are the most trouble. I'm just saying that a more deverse sample would have been a better study. Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG).

Using how we feel sounds like Doctors that don't wear hats and DMEs. Too many variables left to chance in how we feel.

I am sure seeing the money at stake not all of us that are diagonised with Apnea need treatment. But many of us who aren't diagonised yet need the treatment. The more money in a problem the more chance for abuse by the service provider. (Greed Driven) Jim

Goofproof wrote:[
It's the O2 destats that are the most trouble. I'm just saying that a more deverse sample would have been a better study. Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG).

Using how we feel sounds like Doctors that don't wear hats and DMEs. Too many variables left to chance in how we feel.

The biggest variable is that you don't know what you are talking about re: the study in question. The study is a peer reviewed published study with randomized controls. They didn't base it on just self reporting (not that that would invalidate it since it had randomized controls), they based it on:

Main outcome measure Daytime sleepiness (Epworth scale from 0 (no daytime sleepiness) to 24), sleep quality (Pittsburgh quality of sleep index from 0 (excellent sleep quality) to 21), partner rating of sleep disturbance (visual analogue scale from 0 (not disturbed) to 10), apnoea-hypopnoea index, and health related quality of life (SF-36)

.

The cardiorespiratory sleep study was performed at the sleep laboratory of the study centre with a computerised system (SleepLab Pro, Jaeger, Hoechberg, Germany), according to the guidelines of the German Society for Sleep Medicine.

You seem to be on a mission to ignore facts contrary to your opinion and to speak authoritatively about things you apparenty haven't even bothered to read.

I read the Whole article, thanks to my sucessful treatment, I managed to stay awake, it was difficult, seeing as much of it was repeated over and over. We all get something different from what we read, I didn't get impressed, but then again as long as it wasn't my money.

ApNoob wrote:

Goofproof wrote:[
It's the O2 destats that are the most trouble. I'm just saying that a more deverse sample would have been a better study. Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG).

Using how we feel sounds like Doctors that don't wear hats and DMEs. Too many variables left to chance in how we feel.

The biggest variable is that you don't know what you are talking about re: the study in question. The study is a peer reviewed published study with randomized controls. They didn't base it on just self reporting (not that that would invalidate it since it had randomized controls), they based it on:

Main outcome measure Daytime sleepiness (Epworth scale from 0 (no daytime sleepiness) to 24), sleep quality (Pittsburgh quality of sleep index from 0 (excellent sleep quality) to 21), partner rating of sleep disturbance (visual analogue scale from 0 (not disturbed) to 10), apnoea-hypopnoea index, and health related quality of life (SF-36)

.

The cardiorespiratory sleep study was performed at the sleep laboratory of the study centre with a computerised system (SleepLab Pro, Jaeger, Hoechberg, Germany), according to the guidelines of the German Society for Sleep Medicine.

You seem to be on a mission to ignore facts contrary to your opinion and to speak authoritatively about things you apparenty haven't even bothered to read.

Me thinks you have no idea what Jim knows or does not know. This article has been popping up every other month on this forum for the last couple of years or so.

What Jim is saying is that the sample was biased before it was randomized to a sample of 25 (some might argue that it may be too small for a “significant” conclusion) … but what do we know, we’re just APAP’in fools right?

We included German speaking participants aged > 18 years with self reported snoring and an apnoea-hypopnoea index of 15-30 (determined by a specialist in sleep medicine within the past year). Exclusion criteria were current continuous positive airway pressure therapy, use of drugs that act on the central nervous system (such as benzodiazepines), current or planned intervention for weight reduction, consumption of 14 alcoholic drinks a week or 2 a day, and obesity (body mass index 30 kg/m2).

http://www.bmj.com/content/vol332/issue ... 11.f2.jpeg

Hmmm … they forgot to mention in their PowerPoint chart that non-German speaking participants were also excluded? I wonder what effect that has on throat mechanics. Sprechen zie Deutsch?

IMO, one might be able to bias a sample of 25 people and get them to do the OMmmm chant for a few hours a day and come up with a P-value of 0.05 or better.

Anyway, as a NOOB, you are giving Jim far much less credit than he deserves.

DreamStalker wrote:

ApNoob wrote:

Goofproof wrote:[
It's the O2 destats that are the most trouble. I'm just saying that a more deverse sample would have been a better study. Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG).

Using how we feel sounds like Doctors that don't wear hats and DMEs. Too many variables left to chance in how we feel.

The biggest variable is that you don't know what you are talking about re: the study in question. The study is a peer reviewed published study with randomized controls. They didn't base it on just self reporting (not that that would invalidate it since it had randomized controls), they based it on:

Main outcome measure Daytime sleepiness (Epworth scale from 0 (no daytime sleepiness) to 24), sleep quality (Pittsburgh quality of sleep index from 0 (excellent sleep quality) to 21), partner rating of sleep disturbance (visual analogue scale from 0 (not disturbed) to 10), apnoea-hypopnoea index, and health related quality of life (SF-36)

.

The cardiorespiratory sleep study was performed at the sleep laboratory of the study centre with a computerised system (SleepLab Pro, Jaeger, Hoechberg, Germany), according to the guidelines of the German Society for Sleep Medicine.

You seem to be on a mission to ignore facts contrary to your opinion and to speak authoritatively about things you apparenty haven't even bothered to read.

Me thinks you have no idea what Jim knows or does not know..

I don't know what Jim knows, nor do I claim to. Fortunately for me I only commented based on what he wrote! And I was careful to qualify my statements.

What is clear is that it is a mischaracterization to suggest that the study was based on solely on subjective self-reporting rather than objective measurements: "Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG). "

That was a counterfactual statement and excoriating me for pointing it out won't make it anymore true. So if it is truth you are after I'm not the one you should be picking on.

Anyway, as a NOOB, you are giving Jim far much less credit than he deserves.

If you are going to try and riff on my self-awknowledged newbie status you should at least spell "properly" it in leet speak: "n00b"

ApNoob wrote:I don't know what Jim knows, nor to I claim to. Fortunately for me I only commented based on what he wrote! And I was careful to qualify my statements.

What is clear is that it is a mischaracterization to suggest that the study was based on solely on subjective self-reporting rather than objective measurements: "Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG). "

That was a counterfactual statement and excoriating me for pointing it out won't make it anymore true. So if it is truth you are after I'm not the one you should be picking on.

As Jim mentioned ... we all view the world a little different ... so go on and get yourself a few sticks (I mean didjeridoos) ... just make sure to get 'em in different keys so you can play along with all your favorite XPAP songs

Not pick'in on 'ya ... just trying to let you know that Jim has been hos'in (I mean helping) here on this forum for quite a long while. He has helped more folks w/ xPAP issues than you can shake a didjeridoo (I mean stick) at -- including myself when I was a noob.

ApNoob wrote:

Anyway, as a NOOB, you are giving Jim far much less credit than he deserves.

If you are going to try and riff on my self-awknowledged newbie status you should at least spell "properly" it in leet speak: "n00b"

Aye! A noob and a spell checker too .... it's time for some of us to hose up ... g'night!

Best wishes and keep on dron'in ... I mean uh PAP'in ... errr whatever.

DreamStalker wrote:

ApNoob wrote:I don't know what Jim knows, nor to I claim to. Fortunately for me I only commented based on what he wrote! And I was careful to qualify my statements.

What is clear is that it is a mischaracterization to suggest that the study was based on solely on subjective self-reporting rather than objective measurements: "Another useless thing was basing the results on how we feel instead of real measurable results (PSG). "

That was a counterfactual statement and excoriating me for pointing it out won't make it anymore true. So if it is truth you are after I'm not the one you should be picking on.

As Jim mentioned ... we all view the world a little different ... so go on and get yourself a few sticks (I mean didjeridoos) ... just make sure to get 'em in different keys so you can play along with all your favorite XPAP songs

Not pick'in on 'ya ... just trying to let you know that Jim has been hos'in (I mean helping) here on this forum for quite a long while. He has helped more folks w/ xPAP issues than you can shake a didjeridoo (I mean stick) at -- including myself when I was a noob.

Best wishes and keep on dron'in ...

Please don't mistake my point. I'm not disputing the effectiveness of xPAP or Jim's expertise in xPAPs. What I did dispute was false characterizations of the study.

I'm not perfect. I can be wrong and argue based on misinformation. But I try not to be because I want to have the right information not just say I'm right.

I appreciate expertise and experience, however nobody gets a free pass to spread misinformation. I'm not going to ignore Jim's false statements about the BMJ study just because he is a helpful and intelligent poster. In fact, I think it is even more important to correct people who are considered authorities because others are likely to accept misinformation spread by them as true.

DreamStalker wrote:

If you are going to try and riff on my self-awknowledged newbie status you should at least spell "properly" it in leet speak: "n00b"

Aye! A noob and a spell checker too ....

...only when being insulted. If someone is going to be oh so clever and try and riff off of my self-reflexive nom de forum by calling me a noob I have to say it is fair game to call them on it.

I may be a n00b about xPAP but I'm not a new at being rational and fact oriented.

ApNoob wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

If you are going to try and riff on my self-awknowledged newbie status you should at least spell "properly" it in leet speak: "n00b"

Aye! A noob and a spell checker too ....

...only when being insulted. If someone is going to be oh so clever and try and riff off of my self-reflexive nom de forum by calling me a noob I have to say it is fair game to call them on it.

I may be a n00b about xPAP but I'm not a new at being rational and fact oriented.

Sometimes my posts are taken as blunt, gruff, and insensitive … that’s the way I am. Other times I may attempt to have a little fun and it comes off as bad humor … that’s the way I am.

So, my attempts to add some humor to this thread were obviously taken as offensive insults by you and for that I apologize (Dang! … that’s my second apology on this forum in two days).

ApNoob wrote:The biggest variable is that you don't know what you are talking about re: the study in question. The study is a peer reviewed published study with randomized controls.

Just so you know, your reply (above) to Jim can be taken as a bit insulting too but I tried to respond in a fun way. Anyway, for you, enough of my funny stuff. Having a background in science, I too can appreciate rationality and facts. I am not a statistician but I am familiar with its principles from my graduate experience and current employment. IMO, I find the statistical rigor of the BMJ article wanting. So the mischaracterization of the study lies with the authors of that paper (again just my opinion/interpretation). As has been said, we all interpret such findings differently and just because it is peer reviewed does NOT make it fact and/or rational -- at least not within my professional discipline of science.

Finally, as a self-proclaimed decider of misinformation on this forum, you should expect challenges to your decisions and there are at least two long-time members I know of who will indeed challenge and insult you and not apologize (you will be in for a treat when you cross their paths), so beware. As for spell checking the forum … there have been some who tried … good luck!

I mean no ill will to you or anyone else and do hope that you continue your participation on this forum because it really is the best place to get your PAP treatment done right and quickly (relatively speaking). My best wishes to you and your treatment. As for me I think it is time for me to go away chill again.

I think I'm going to dust off my saxophone and give that a whirl....My dog will so love me....