ArticleNature and science of sleep2016
Enhancements to the multiple sleep latency test.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous sleep depth index annotation with deep learning yields novel digital biomarkers for sleep health.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Shorter respiratory event duration is related to prevalence of type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- An Ultra-Short Measure of Excessive Daytime Sleepiness Is Related to Circadian Biological Rhythms: The French Psychometric Validation of the Barcelona Sleepiness Index.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Reinventing polysomnography in the age of precision medicine.Sleep medicine reviews · 2020Review
- Reliability of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Rules for Assessing Sleep Depth in Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2018Article
- Minimizing Interrater Variability in Staging Sleep by Use of Computer-Derived Features.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe utility of multiple sleep latency tests (MSLTs) is limited to determining sleep onset latency (SOL) and rapid eye movement sleep latency. The odds ratio product (ORP) is a continuous index of sleep depth with values of 0, 1.0, and 2.5 reflecting very deep sleep, light sleep, and full wakefulness, respectively. We determined the time course of sleep depth during MSLT naps expecting that this would enhance the test's clinical utility.
methodsThirty MSLTs (150 naps) were performed for excessive somnolence. Patients indicated whether they slept (yes/no) after each nap. SOL was scored by two experienced technologists. Time course of ORP was determined with a commercial system. We determined ORP at SOL (ORPSOL), times ORP decreased <2.0, <1.5, <1.0 and <0.5 during the entire nap duration, and the integral of decrease in ORP over nap duration (ΔORPINT).
resultsSOL occurred almost invariably when ORP was between 1.0 and 2.0. Of 47 naps (21 patients) with SOL <5 minutes, ORP decreased <1.0 (light sleep) in <5 minutes in only 13 naps (nine patients) and <0.5 (deep sleep) in only two naps in one patient. The relation between ORPINT and frequency of sleep perception was well defined, allowing determination of a threshold for sleep perception. This threshold ranged widely (5-50 ΔORP*epoch).
conclusionAs currently identified, SOL reflects transition into a highly unstable state between wakefulness and sleep. Reporting the times of attaining different sleep depths may help better identify patients at high risk of vigilance loss. Furthermore, an ORPSOL outside the range 1.0-2.0 can help identify scoring errors.
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.