4.6 Article

Sleep stage dynamics in fibromyalgia patients and controls

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 689-696

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2007.10.022

关键词

polysomnography; fibromyalgia; sleep; sleep stages; sleep fragmentation; pain

资金

  1. Arthritis Foundation, Michigan Chapter
  2. Pfizer, Inc
  3. University of Michigan General Clinical Research Center [M01-RR00042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether previously described sleep stage dynamics, reflecting the mean duration of specific sleep stages, may have clinical utility in a sample of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and controls. Methods: Women with FMS (n = 15, screened to exclude other sleep disorders) and age-matched women in good health (n = 15) were studied with nocturnal polysomnography, multiple sleep latency tests, 2-week pain diaries, and a measure of current pain intensity. Results: The FMS subjects, in comparison to controls, did not show differences in several common polysomnographic measures, except for increased numbers of stage shifts (126 +/- 27 vs. 107 +/- 22, p=.042). Mean durations for episodes of total sleep, stage I sleep, stage 3/4 sleep, and rapid eye movement sleep failed to distinguish FMS and control subjects (Wilcoxon rank sum tests, p > 10 for each), but those for stage 2 sleep were shorter in the FMS subjects (p=.006), possibly because transitions to stage 3/4 sleep occurred more quickly (p=.036). Shorter stage 2 sleep durations predicted higher pain diary scores (Spearman rho = -.56, p=.0014) and current pain intensity (rho = -.71, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Sleep stage dynamic, and, more specifically, shorter durations of sleep stage 2 periods, distinguish FMS and control female subjects and may predict pain levels experienced in FMS. Analysis of the lengths of individual sleep stages, in addition to the usual sleep stage amounts and percentages listed in standard polysomnogram reports, may have clinical utility. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据