SynthesisPloS one2024
Association between self-reported napping and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objectively Measured Daytime Napping Patterns and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Optimal nap timing and body mass index: beyond duration.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Observational
- The Beauty Sleep to Keep a Healthy Liver.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Association of sleep duration and sleep quality with cognitive frailty in Chinese older adults.Frontiers in public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis meta-analysis aims to assess the association between adult nap duration and risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular diseases (CVD).
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies. The quality of observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed all statistical analyses using Stata software version 14.0. For the meta-analysis, we calculated hazard ratio (HR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To assess publication bias, we used a funnel plot and Egger's test.
resultsA total of 21 studies involving 371,306 participants revealed varying methodological quality, from moderate to high. Those who indulged in daytime naps faced a significantly higher mortality risk than non-nappers (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.18-1.38; I2 = 38.8%; P<0.001). Napping for less than 1 hour showed no significant association with mortality (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.90-1.11; I2 = 62.6%; P = 0.971). However, napping for 1 hour or more correlated with a 1.22-fold increased risk of mortality (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.12-1.33; I2 = 40.0%; P<0.001). The risk of CVD associated with napping was 1.18 times higher than that of non-nappers (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.02-1.38; I2 = 87.9%; P = 0.031). Napping for less than 1 hour did not significantly impact CVD risk (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.87-1.12; I2 = 86.4%; P = 0.721). However, napping for 1 hour or more was linked to a 1.37-fold increased risk of CVD (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.09-1.71; I2 = 68.3%; P = 0.007).
conclusionsOur meta-analysis indicates that taking a nap increases the risk of overall mortality and CVD mortality. It highlights that the long duration time of the nap can serve as a risk factor for evaluating both overall mortality and cardiovascular mortality.
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.