ReviewClocks & sleep2025
Effects of Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia on Self-Reported Sleep Parameters: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Clocks & sleep, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (dCBT-I) is an effective alternative to therapist-delivered CBT-I. However, there is a lack of meta-analyses assessing its effects on other sleep-related outcomes. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dCBT-I in adults with insomnia through polysomnography (PSG) and sleep diary. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed and Web of Science. The outcomes considered were total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), sleep efficiency (SE), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and number of awakenings (NWAK). Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to compare dCBT-I with active (in-person or telehealth CBT-I) or inactive (waiting list, no treatment, or minimal intervention) control groups. Of the fourteen RCTs included, only three employed an active control. As no trials used PSG, the analyses relied solely on sleep diary data. DCBT-I showed no statistically significant differences from active controls, indicating comparable effects with therapist-delivered CBT-I. In contrast, it demonstrated statistically significant effects against inactive controls; TST increased by 0.20 h, SOL decreased by 15.53 min, SE improved by 7.91%, WASO reduced by 15.61 min, and NWAK decreased by 0.53. Future research should prioritize comparisons with therapist-delivered CBT-I and incorporate PSG for measuring these parameters.
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.