Last updated August 16, 2026
Key finding
Mean LogMAR 0.33 (95% CI 0.29–0.37) versus 0.31 (95% CI 0.27–0.35); p=0.39
This study evaluated the impact of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) on visual acuity in individuals with type 2 diabetes and diabetic macular oedema. No significant differences were found in visual acuity between CPAP and usual care groups.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Long-Term (1–5 y)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the impact of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) on visual acuity in individuals with type 2 diabetes and diabetic macular oedema. No significant differences were found in visual acuity between CPAP and usual care groups.
These findings are significant as they suggest that while CPAP is commonly used for obstructive sleep apnoea, it may not provide additional benefits for visual health in patients with diabetes-related eye conditions. Understanding the effectiveness of CPAP in this population can help guide treatment decisions and patient management.
The study may have limited generalizability due to specific inclusion criteria. Sample size and diversity of participants were not detailed. The long-term effects of CPAP beyond 12 months were not assessed.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Sophie DW, Benjamin P, Joan H, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea in people with type 2 diabetes and diabetic macular oedema: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. The European Respiratory Journal. 2018;52(4):1801177. doi:10.1183/13993003.01177-2018
No significant difference in visual acuity at 12 months (mean LogMAR 0.33 vs 0.31; p=0.39).
Median daily CPAP use was approximately 3.2 hours across the study period.
CMT deterioration at 3 months was statistically significant but did not persist at later time points.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), Usual care and Average daily CPAP usage in hours, Change in central macular thickness (CMT), Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)
Primary outcomes
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
0
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
0
Related studies
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) → Average daily CPAP usage in hours
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) → Average daily CPAP usage in hours
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) → Change in central macular thickness (CMT)
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) → Change in central macular thickness (CMT)
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) → Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) → Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR
Usual care → Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR
Usual care → Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Average daily CPAP usage in hours, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Change in central macular thickness (CMT).
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Devices & Technology
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Average daily CPAP usage in hours
Measures Average daily CPAP usage in hours as a key outcome.
All studies measuring Change in central macular thickness (CMT)
Measures Change in central macular thickness (CMT) as a key outcome.
All studies on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)
Contributes to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) evidence base.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for average daily cpap usage in hours.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Average daily CPAP usage in hours
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for change in central macular thickness (CMT).
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in central macular thickness (CMT)
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) for change in visual acuity measured by logmar.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Usual care for change in visual acuity measured by logmar.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in visual acuity measured by LogMAR
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
