4.5 Article

Sleep in patients with remitted bipolar disorders: a meta-analysis of actigraphy studies

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 131, 期 2, 页码 89-99

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12367

关键词

bipolar disorders; actigraphy; euthymia; sleep; circadian rhythms

资金

  1. Astra Zeneca
  2. BMS-Otsuka
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. GSK
  5. Jansen-Cilag
  6. Lundbeck
  7. Sanofi-Aventis
  8. Servier
  9. Otsuka
  10. AstraZeneca
  11. Bristol-Myers Squibb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveSleep dysregulation is highly prevalent in bipolar disorders (BDs), with previous actigraphic studies demonstrating sleep abnormalities during depressive, manic, and interepisode periods. We undertook a meta-analysis of published actigraphy studies to identify whether any abnormalities in the reported sleep profiles of remitted BD cases differ from controls. MethodA systematic review identified independent studies that were eligible for inclusion in a random effects meta-analysis. Effect sizes for actigraphy parameters were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). ResultsNine of 248 identified studies met eligibility criteria. Compared with controls (N=210), remitted BD cases (N=202) showed significant differences in SMD for sleep latency (0.51 [0.28-0.73]), sleep duration (0.57 [0.30-0.84]), wake after sleep onset (WASO) (0.28 [0.06-0.50]) and sleep efficiency (-0.38 [-0.70-0.07]). Moderate heterogeneity was identified for sleep duration (I-2=44%) and sleep efficiency (I-2=44%). Post hoc meta-regression analyses demonstrated that larger SMD for sleep duration were identified for studies with a greater age difference between BD cases and controls (=0.22; P=0.03) and non-significantly lower levels of residual depressive symptoms in BD cases (=-0.13; P=0.07). ConclusionThis meta-analysis of sleep in remitted bipolar disorder highlights disturbances in several sleep parameters. Future actigraphy studies should pay attention to age matching and levels of residual depressive symptoms.

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

4.5
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