ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025
Promoting Sleep for Neurology Inpatients: The Value of Routine Overnight Vital Signs.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Let Our Patients Sleep: A Plea for Common Sense.Neurology. Clinical practice · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Sleep is a critical component of health and recovery. Awakening sleeping patients for routine vital sign monitoring overnight is a common inpatient practice, but its benefits are uncertain. This study asked 3 questions: (1) How often are routine overnight vital signs abnormal? (2) How often are those abnormal vital signs clinically actionable? (3) Are there patients who may not need routine overnight vital sign monitoring? Methods: We analyzed observational retrospective data extracted from electronic health records of patients admitted to inpatient neurology floors at our institution between 2017 and 2024. We defined routine vital signs as collected by nursing assistants at least 3 hours apart. The outcome measure was an urgent clinical action (stat orders, rapid responses, or transfers to a higher level of care) within 1 hour of vital sign events. We compared the rate of urgent clinical actions after abnormal vital signs with the base rate of those events after normal vital signs. Statistical analysis used generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures. Results: We analyzed 102,184 routine vital sign events from 5,569 neurology admissions. In total, 9% of vital sign events were abnormal. The likelihood of urgent clinical actions increased after abnormal vital sign events, compared with after normal vital sign events during the day (4.3% vs 2.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.8 [1.6-2.1]); at night (2.4% vs 0.9%, OR 2.8 [2.2-3.7]); during the night in low-risk patients with normal daytime vitals (2.0% vs 0.7%, OR 3.0 [1.8-4.9]); and at night in high-risk patients with abnormal daytime vitals (2.6% vs 1.1%, OR 2.5 [1.7-3.6]). The number needed to treat (NNT), i.e., the number of vital sign events needed to initiate 1 extra urgent clinical action above the base rate, was 1,856 [943; 4,598] in low-risk patients. The NNT for low-risk stroke patients was 1,570 [679; 4,707] and for general neurology patients was 2,231 [797; 5,423]. Discussion: Urgent clinical actions attributable to abnormal routine vital signs were uncommon in neurology inpatients, especially overnight in patients with normal daytime vital signs. Determining the risks and benefits of routine overnight vital sign monitoring will help hospitals and health care providers move toward more patient-centered inpatient neurologic care.
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.