4.7 Review

Daytime naps and depression risk: A meta-analysis of observational studies

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1051128

Keywords

daytime nap; depression; meta-analysis; psychiatry; mental health

Funding

  1. Doctoral Program of Gannan Medical University
  2. [QD202017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between daytime napping and depression. The results showed an increased risk of depressive symptoms among daytime nappers. These findings may have significant implications for future research on depression.
Background: The relationship between daytime napping and depression remains debatable. Thus, a meta-analysis in this study was conducted to evaluate the relationship between daytime napping and depression. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched up to February 2022, and the reference lists of the included studies were also retrieved. A random-effects model was used to estimate the combined effect size. Results: Nine studies with 649,111 participants were included in the final analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.31) with a significant heterogeneity (I-2 = 91.3%, P for heterogeneity < 0.001), and the results demonstrated an increased risk of depressive symptoms among daytime nappers. Visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger's and Begg's tests identified no obvious evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that daytime naps are a predictor of depression. The effects of daytime napping on depression may vary depending on the characteristics of people, the pattern of naps, and the individual's sleep experience. The findings may have significant implications for future research on depression.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available