ArticleNature and science of sleep2012
An approach to long-term sedative-hypnotic use.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultra-Processed Food Intake and Risk of Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2024Pooled it
- A pilot, parallel-group, blinded, placebo-controlled, randomiseCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Zebrafish as a translational filter for natural sleep modulators.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- NMDA Receptors in the Lateral Preoptic Hypothalamus Are Essential for Sustaining NREM and REM Sleep.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Stem cell-based models and therapies: a key approach into schizophrenia treatment.Cell and tissue banking · 2021Review
- Mild cognitive impairment: associations with sleep disturbance, apolipoprotein e4, and sleep medications.Sleep medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insomnia is a common, often chronic medical disorder with significant medical and socioeconomic repercussions. However, unlike other medical conditions, there is intense debate as to whether the long-term treatment of insomnia is clinically appropriate. The perceived deleterious side effect of sedative-hypnotic medications may result in patients remaining untreated or undertreated. This review proposes that a more subtle approach needs to be taken in the management of patients with chronic insomnia and that long-term use of the newer sedative-hypnotics may be a feasible and effective treatment option when used in conjunction with thorough medical assessment and regular patient follow-up. This review discusses these issues and discusses the pros and cons of long-term sedative-hypnotic use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.