ArticleBrain sciences2024
Prevalence of Orthosomnia in a General Population Sample: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consumer-oriented (wearable) sleep technology: a systematic SWOT analysis and recommendations for athletes and fitness enthusiasts.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Orthometria: Metric Fixation in Digital Health and a Framework for Responsible Use in High-Performance Sport.Sports medicine - open · 2026Article
- Human-Centered AI in Sleep Health Management: Scoping Review of Stakeholder Perspectives and Co-Design Practices.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Perspectives regarding consumer sleep technology and barriers to its use or adoption among adults in the United States.Sleep medicine · 2025Article
- A narrative review on in-flight use of consumer sleep technologies for aviation research.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2025Review
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesOrthosomnia has become a concern in the field of sleep medicine. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the prevalence of orthosomnia in the general population.
methodsWe collected data from 523 participants via the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, Anxiety and Preoccupation about Sleep Questionnaire, and Athens Insomnia Scale. Additionally, we gathered information about participants' use of commercial sleep-tracking wearable devices.
resultsWe developed a four-criteria algorithm to identify cases of orthosomnia: ownership of a wearable sleep-tracking device, AIS score ≥ 6, GAD-7 score ≤ 14, and APSQ score ≥ 40 or APSQ score ≥ 35 or APSQ score ≥ 30, for conservative, moderate, and lenient prevalence estimates, respectively. One hundred seventy-six (35.8%) (95% CI 34.6-40.1%) participants regularly used sleep-tracking devices. The prevalence rates of algorithm-identified orthosomnia in the study sample were: 16 participants (3.0%, 95% CI 1.6-4.5%), 45 participants (8.6%, 95% CI 6.2-11.0%), 73 participants (14.0%, 95% CI 10.9-16.9%) for the for conservative, moderate, and lenient prevalence estimates, respectively. Individuals with orthosomnia were not significantly different in terms of age and sex. The cases consistently had higher AIS scores than non-cases across all APSQ cutoffs, indicating more severe insomnia symptoms, with significant differences observed at each cutoff point.
conclusionsThis study offers initial insights into the prevalence of orthosomnia within our sample at a specific time. The findings reveal notable rates of orthosomnia among individuals using sleep-tracking devices; however, we must acknowledge the limitations inherent in a cross-sectional design.
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.