4.6 Review

The heritability of insomnia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of twin studies

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101437

Keywords

Dizygotic; Genetics; Heritability; Insomnia; Monozygotic; Twins

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Twin studies consistently show that genetic factors play a significant role in explaining variance for insomnia, with a mean heritability estimate of 0.39. However, there is considerable heterogeneity among studies, highlighting the need for further research to identify variables that may explain this variation.
Twin studies have consistently found that genetic factors explain a substantial proportion of the variance for insomnia. However, studies vary widely in their heritability estimates. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to: 1) Estimate the mean heritability of insomnia; 2) Assess heterogeneity among twin studies of insomnia; and 3) Search and analyse characteristics of the studies (moderator variables) that may explain heterogeneity among estimates. For this purpose, separate meta-analyses were carried out for MZ and DZ correlations and for heritability estimates by assuming random-effects models. Thirteen independent samples were included in this meta-analysis. The heterogeneity index for heritability estimates was significant in both best fitting models (I-2 = 98.77, P < .0001) and full models (I-2 = 97.80, P < .0001). MZ correlations were higher (0.37; 95%CI: 0.31,.43) than DZ correlations (0.15; 95%CI: 0.12,.18). A mean heritability of 0.39 (95%CI: 0.32,.44) was found for insomnia. These results highlight the role of genetic factors in explaining differences among the population on insomnia and Emphasize heterogeneity among studies. Further research is needed to identify variables that could explain this heterogeneity. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. 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