SynthesisSleep medicine reviews2025
What you believe is what you get? A systematic review examining how beliefs and attitudes about sleep are associated with sleep duration in non-clinical samples.
Synthesis in Sleep medicine reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep without borders starts here: Principles and pathways for sleep health promotion.Sleep medicine: X · 2026Article
- Associations between anxiety, somatic pain and sleep disturbances in major depressive disorder and chronic pain: A cross-sectional study with gender-specific insights.General psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A burgeoning area of research is investigating whether beliefs and attitudes about sleep are associated with sleep duration in individuals without clinical conditions (e.g., insomnia, depression, anxiety, chronic pain). This review sought to examine and synthesize the extant research in non-clinical samples. A systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines was conducted between March 2024 and May 2024, with 2204 studies screened. Study quality was assessed using NIH's Quality Assessment Tool for Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and NIH's Quality Assessment Tool for Controlled Intervention Studies. Seventeen articles met eligibility criteria. All studies were classified as "fair" or "poor" quality. Studies generally demonstrated that more favorable attitudes and beliefs were associated with appropriate sleep duration. Specific beliefs related to sleep may be differentially associated with sleep duration. Preliminary evidence demonstrated that demographic factors may modify this association. Favorable attitudes toward sleep may be associated with more appropriate sleep duration among individuals without clinical conditions. However, the quality of the extant research was rated poorly, demonstrating a need for additional, higher quality studies. Future studies should consider this relationship while considering demographic factors as this may have important implications for public sleep health efforts.
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.