ArticleAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology2022
Taking to "heart" the proposed legislation for permanent daylight saving time.
Article in American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circadian Disruption and the Molecular Clock in Atherosclerosis and Hypertension.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Getting it right.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In March 2022, the US Senate passed the Sunshine Protection Act that would abolish the biannual change in clocks each fall and spring and permanently adopt daylight saving time that aligns with the "spring forward" time change each March. A number of scientific and medical societies have endorsed the abolishment of the biannual clock change, but oppose the permanent adoption of daylight saving time. Instead, leading organizations such as the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR) position statements highlight peer-reviewed evidence in favor of a permanent shift to standard time. The present perspectives will summarize some of the key AASM and SRBR recommendations, with a particular focus on the potential cardiovascular implications of a legislative change that would result in a permanent switch to either standard time or daylight saving time. Collectively, although there is building scientific consensus that abolishing the biannual time change has several sleep and circadian health benefits, the preponderance of evidence is opposite to the current legislation and instead suggests a permanent switch to standard time may offer the maximum health and safety benefits. This scientific evidence should be considered as the United States House of Representatives considers the Sunshine Protection Act.
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.