ArticleSleep medicine2024
Validation and performance of the sleep inertia questionnaire in central disorders of hypersomnolence.
Article in Sleep medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A minimal clinically important difference for the sleep inertia visual analog scale in idiopathic hypersomnia.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Trial
- Idiopathic hypersomnia is a 24-hour disorder.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Review
- Idiopathic hypersomnia symptoms over Time: Longitudinal follow up from the Hypersomnia Foundation registry.Sleep medicine · 2025Article
- Quantifying the sources of discrepancy between total recording time and total sleep time in home sleep apnea testing: insights from home-based polysomnography.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Observational
- Impaired Vigilance in Patients with Narcolepsy Type 1: A Psychomotor Vigilance Task Study.Nature and science of sleep · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal measurement tools for problematic sleep inertia, common in some central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH), have not yet been determined. We evaluated the performance of the Sleep Inertia Questionnaire (SIQ) in CDH, and how well it distinguished hypersomnolent groups from controls, and IH (idiopathic hypersomnia) from narcolepsy type 1 (NT1).
methodsThis prospective, bi-centric study included 63 control, 84 IH, 16 NT1, 18 narcolepsy type 2 (NT2), and 88 subjective excessive daytime sleepiness (sEDS) participants, using ICSD-3 criteria. 126 (47.2 %) participants were on any medication at the time of SIQ completion. We assessed construct validity of SIQ scores, and sleep inertia duration (SID), and compared them across diagnoses, controlling for age and center. We derived cutpoints to distinguish hypersomnolent patients from controls and IH from NT1. Sensitivity analyses for depression, chronotype, and medication were performed.
resultsThe SIQ sum and composite score were significantly lower in controls than in other groups (p < 0.0001), demonstrating outstanding ability to distinguish patients from controls (AUCs 0.92), without differences among hypersomnolent groups. SID (AUC 0.76) was significantly shorter in controls than in all hypersomnolent groups except NT1, and was shorter in NT1 than in IH or sEDS. Optimal SIQ sum cutpoint was 42 (J = 0.71) for patients versus controls. Optimal SID cutpoint in distinguishing IH from NT1 was 25 min (J = 0.39).
conclusionThe SIQ has excellent ability to distinguish hypersomnolent patients from healthy controls, after controlling for depression, eveningness, and medication. SID is best at distinguishing IH from NT1.
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.