ArticlePloS one2025
How do people feel about sleep diaries? Factors influencing sleep diaries completion with and without daily exposure to light.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesSleep diary is a common tool in sleep medicine, but was barely validated in practice so far. Lack of light exposure is associated with sleep disorders, especially insomnia. For that purpose, our team developed a sleep diary with information about light exposure. Our objectives were to compare the proportion of informative usual sleep diaries (USD) and light/sleep diaries (LSD) and to evaluate factors influencing the quality of filling them.
methodsA monocentric, prospective, controlled interventional study was conducted. Patients included were randomized into two parallel groups: distribution of an USD (used in common practice), versus distribution of a LSD (similar to the USD but with light exposure data). The main outcome was the proportion of diaries returned and correctly filled out. A multivariate logistic regression model was then used to identify factors associated with the correct filling.
resultsA total of 325 USD and 324 LSD were distributed. 295 (45.5%) diaries were returned by patients: 158 (48.6%) USD, 137 (42.3%) LSD. The proportion of correctly completed diaries was 25.2% for USD versus 20.4% for LSD, which corresponds to a difference in the proportion of -4.86% [-10.25%; +∞[. The hypothesis of non-inferiority of LSD compared to USD cannot therefore be retained for a non-inferiority threshold of -10%. Multivariate analysis identified the level of difficulty experienced by the patient as an important factor influencing the quality of completion (OR = 0.99 [0.979-0.998]). The proportion of returned sleep diaries was greater in the USD and LSD insomniac subgroup (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe non-inferiority of this new diary was not reached but this study highlighted the importance of clear explanations, patient motivation and restricted amount of collected data. Interestingly, insomniac patients represent a major target population for this tool.
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.