Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36320190›Full record

SynthesisJournal of sleep research2023

An observatory on changes in dreaming during a pandemic: a living systematic review (part 1).

Giorgia Margherita, Alessia Caffieri

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of sleep research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Giorgia MargheritaDepartment of Humanistic Studies, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0429-7609
Alessia CaffieriDepartment of Humanistic Studies, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A 'new' way of dreaming has emerged during the pandemic, enhancing the interest of psychological literature. Indeed, during the years of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many studies have investigated dream-related phenomena and dreaming functions. Considering the constant and rapid emergence of new results on this topic, the main aim of this study was to create an 'observatory' on the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on dreaming, by means of a living systematic review. The baseline results are presented, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, to identify and discuss existing studies about dreams and dreaming during the COVID-19 pandemic published until February 2022. Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and PubMed were used for the search strategy, yielding 71 eligible papers included in the review. Our results show: (a) a more intense oneiric activity during lockdown; (b) changes in dreaming components (especially dream-recall and nightmare frequency); (c) a particular dreaming scenario ('pandemic dreams'); (d) an alteration of the dreaming-waking-life continuum and a specific function of dreaming as emotional regulator. Findings suggest that monitoring changes in dreaming provides important information about psychological health and could also contribute to the debate on the difficulties of dreaming, as well as sleeping, in particular during and after a period of 'collective trauma'.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCommunicable Disease ControlDreamsHumansSleepdreamingdreamsliving systematic reviewpandemicpsychological health

Identifiers

PMID36320190
PMCPMC9877779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.