ArticlePloS one2024
Validity of self-reported sleep duration in the Cancer Prevention Study- 3.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Change in sleep duration following a cancer diagnosis.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Sleep duration and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- The Role of Fatigue in the Relationship Between Sleep and Concentration Among Online College Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Big data approaches for novel mechanistic insights on sleep and circadian rhythms: a workshop summary.Sleep · 2025Article
- Electronic Screen Use and Sleep Duration and Timing in Adults.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe examined the one-year test re-test reliability and validity criterion of survey-assessed sleep duration collected from two separate questions.
methodsThe Activity Validation Sub Study included 751 participants of the Cancer Prevention Study-3 study to further investigate rest/activity cycles. Sleep duration was collected using three methods: survey, Daysimeter device, and sleep diary. Survey-assessed sleep duration was collected using 2 different questions, each with different response options (categorical and continuous). Selected participants (n = 170) were asked to wear a Daysimeter device for seven consecutive days for two non-consecutive quarters. Participants were excluded from the current study due to incomplete/implausible survey or device data or reported working night shift. We calculated reliability of pre- and post-survey sleep duration for both survey question using Spearman correlation. We used the method of triads to estimate the validity coefficient (VC) between the three sleep duration measurements in the present study and the "true" latent sleep duration measure, and bootstrapping methods to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
resultsOf 119 participants included in the study (52.10% male), test-retest correlation showed strong and moderate correlations for sleep duration collected continuously and categorically, respectively. The VC for survey-assessed continuous sleep duration was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71, 0.90) for weekday and 0.68 (95%CI 0.46, 0.83) for weekend. Performance of the VC was slightly weaker for survey-assessed categorical sleep duration (weekday VC = 0.57 95%CI 0.42, 0.71; weekend VC = 0.47 95%CI 0.29, 0.62).
conclusionThe two survey-assessed sleep duration questions used in the AVSS and CPS-3 cohorts are valid approximations of sleep duration.
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.