4.6 Article

The effect of sleep deprivation on pain perception in healthy subjects: a meta-analysis

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages 1313-1320

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2015.07.022

Keywords

Sleep deprivation; Pain perception; Meta-analysis; Reciprocal relation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is strong evidence indicating an interaction between sleep and pain. However, the size of this effect, as well as the clinical relevance, is unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the effect of sleep deprivation on pain perception. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane, Psyndex, Psycinfo, and Scopus. By conducting a random-effect model, the pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of sleep deprivation on pain perception was calculated. Studies that investigated any kind of sleep deprivation in conjunction with a pain measurement were included. In cases of several pain measurements within a study, the average effect size of all measures was calculated. Results: Five eligible studies (N = 190) for the between-group analysis and ten studies (N = 266) for the within-group analysis were identified. Sleep deprivation showed a medium effect in the between-group analysis (SMD = 0.62; CI95: 0.12, 1.12; z = 2.43; p = 0.015) and a large effect in the within-group analysis (SMD = 1.49; CI95: 0.82, 2.17; z = 4.35; p < 0.0001). The test for heterogeneity was not significant in the between-group analysis (Q = 5.29; df = 4; p = 0.2584), but it was significant in the within-group analysis (Q = 53.49; df = 9; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms a medium effect (SMD = 0.62) of sleep deprivation on pain perception. As this meta-analysis is based on experimental studies in healthy subjects, the clinical relevance should be clarified. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available