4.6 Article

Defining insomnia: Quantitative criteria for insomnia severity and frequency

Journal

SLEEP
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 479-485

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/29.4.479

Keywords

primary insomnia; quantitative criteria; ROC analyses; sensitivity and specificity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Objective: Recent efforts have been made to develop quantitative frequency, duration, and severity criteria for insomnia. The current study was conducted to test a range of frequency and severity criteria sets for discriminating primary insomnia sufferers from normal sleepers. Participants: Seventy-two adults with primary insomnia and 88 age-matched normal sleepers. Methods: Participants completed 14 consecutive nights of sleep logs to monitor their home sleep patterns. Receiver-operator characteristic curve analyses were used to compare a range of severity and frequency criteria sets for discriminating the insomnia and normal-sleeper groups. In addition, sensitivity and specificity tests were conducted for a range of wake-time severity cutoffs based on 2-week mean sleep-log data. Results: Receiver-operator characteristic curve analyses showed that no 1 combination of severity and frequency criteria maximized sensitivity and specificity. Rather, the optimal frequency cutoff decreased as the severity criterion increased. Analyses of mean sleep-log data showed that an average sleep-onset latency or middle-of-the-night wake time (ie, time awake between sleep onset and final morning awakening) cutoff of 20 minutes or longer over 2 weeks of sleep-log monitoring appeared to best maximize sensitivity (94.4%) and specificity (79.6%) for insomnia classification. Conclusions: The optimal quantitative insomnia criteria found herein differ from those previously proposed. Nonetheless, results suggest that quantitative criteria derived from sleep-log data may be useful for classification of primary insomnia.

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