4.5 Article

REM sleep and depressive symptoms in a population-based study of middle-aged and elderly persons

Journal

JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 305-308

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.12273

Keywords

depression; polysomnography; rapid eye movement density; epidemiology

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [NWO-VIDI: 017.106.370]
  2. Erasmus Medical Center
  3. Erasmus University, Rotterdam
  4. Netherlands Organization for the Health Research and Development (ZonMw)
  5. Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (RIDE)
  6. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
  7. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports
  8. European Commission (DG XII)
  9. Municipality of Rotterdam

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alterations in rapid eye movement sleep have been consistently related to depression in clinical studies. So far, there is limited evidence from population-based studies for this association of rapid eye movement sleep alterations with depressive symptoms. In 489 participants of the Rotterdam Study, we assessed rapid eye movement sleep latency, rapid eye movement sleep duration and rapid eye movement density with ambulant polysomnography, and depressive symptoms with the Center of Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale. A longer rapid eye movement sleep latency (B=0.002, P=0.025) and higher rapid eye movement density (B=0.015, P=0.046) were related to depressive symptoms after age-sex adjustment. When we excluded persons who used sleep medication or medication for the nervous system (n=124), only rapid eye movement density remained related to depressive symptoms (B=0.018, P=0.027). Our results suggest that rapid eye movement density is a marker of depressive symptoms in the general population, and that associations of rapid eye movement sleep with depressive symptoms are modified by the use of medication.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available