Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40965652›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2025

Sleep disorders: comparison of ICD-11 and ICD-10.

Kai Spiegelhalder, Dieter Riemann

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kai SpiegelhalderDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstraße 5, 79104, Freiburg, Germany. kai.spiegelhalder@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
Dieter RiemannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstraße 5, 79104, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current article reviews adjustments that were made to the classification of sleep disorders in the 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) in comparison to the 10th revision of the coding system (ICD-10). A new chapter on sleep-wake disorders was introduced as chapter 7 in ICD-11, removing the distinction in nonorganic and organic sleep disorders that was used in ICD-10. The rationale for this was the commonsense notion that clinicians and researchers have difficulties to identify the etiology of insomnia and to establish causality between insomnia and coexisting conditions. With respect to sleep disorders that were previously included in chapter V "Mental and behavioural disorders" of the ICD-10, the following important changes were made: the diagnosis of insomnia disorder can now be made as comorbid with other mental disorders or physical illnesses if the insomnia symptoms are a focus of independent clinical attention, non-restorative sleep alone without difficulties initiating or maintaining sleep is not sufficient anymore to diagnose insomnia disorder and new diagnostic categories have been created, including insufficient sleep syndrome and sleep-related eating disorder. Future research will show whether the adjustments in ICD-11 will help clinicians to make reliable and clinically useful diagnoses and whether this improves routine clinical care for sleep disorders.

Indexed as

International Classification of DiseasesSleep Wake DisordersComorbidityHumansSleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersCircadian rhythm sleep disordersHypersomniasInsomnia disorderParasomniasSleep-wake disorders

Identifiers

PMID40965652
PMCPMC12638355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.