ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Inconclusive evidence for causal effects between rumination and sleep problems: a simulated reanalysis and comment on Yang and Lei (2025).
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Based on findings from analyses with cross-lagged panel models, Yang and Lei suggested reciprocal causal effects between rumination and sleep problems. However, it is well known that findings from cross-lagged panel models may be spurious. Method: We simulated data to resemble the data used by Yang and Lei. We used triangulation and fitted complementary models to the simulated data. Results: We found contradicting increasing and decreasing effects of initial rumination on subsequent change in sleep problems and vice versa. Conclusion: The divergent findings indicated that it is premature to assume causal effects between rumination and sleep problems and the suggestions by Yang and Lei in this regard can be challenged. It is important for researchers to be aware that correlations, including adjusted cross-lagged effects, do not prove causality in order not to overinterpret findings, something that appears to have happened to Yang and Lei. We recommend researchers to triangulate by fitting complementary models to their data in order to evaluate if analyzed data could be used to support contradicting conclusions, in which case the data should not be used to support any of those conclusions.
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.