4.3 Article

Sleep disturbances in the spinal cord injured: an epidemiological questionnaire investigation, including a normal population

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 39, 期 10, 页码 505-513

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101197

关键词

spinal cord injury; paraplegia; tetraplegia; normal population; sleep; sleep disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

7Study design: Epidemiological review. Objective: To evaluate sleep disturbances in the spinal cord injured. Setting: The Clinic for Para- and Tetraplegia, Hornbaek/Copenhagen, Copenhagen University hospital, Denmark. Methods: All patients admitted with traumatic SCI during the 20-year period 1968 - 1987 were reviewed. The normal population consisted of 339, 222 men and 117 won-ten. These groups were asked to fill in the self-administered Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (NSQ) containing 21 questions. Questions were added regarding employment, smoking, alcohol. coffee or tea consumption, height and weight. The questionnaire for SCI individuals included questions about bladder emptying method, mobility, and spasms. For the SCI population age at injury. cause of injury, neurological level. and functional class were retrieved. Results: Four hundred and eight SCI individuals, 331 men and 77 women, answered the NSQ corresponding to a response rate of 83.8%. Forty-seven per cent had a cervical cord lesion and about half of the population had a complete motor lesion. In comparison with the normal population the SCI individuals had greater difficulty in falling asleep, described more frequent awakenings, slept subjectively less well, were more often prescribed sleeping pills. slept more hours. took more and longer naps, and snored more and for more years. In particular, spasms. pain, paraesthesia, and troubles with voiding were claimed to be part of the sleep problems. Conclusion: In spite of the same average age and a higher body mass index in the normal than the SCI population. the SCI individuals showed significantly more sleep problems than the normal population.

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

4.3
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