ReviewEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2026
A review of sleep-related indicators measured in large population-based cohort studies in Japan.
Review in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHow to measure sleep has been the primary focus of sleep epidemiological studies. To address the lack of systematic evaluation of sleep-related indicators, we reviewed large population-based cohort studies in Japan, focusing on whether sleep was measured subjectively or objectively.
methodsPubMed, Ichushi-Web, and official cohort study websites were systematically searched from January 1, 2004, to March 31, 2025, to identify studies that measured sleep-related indicators as exposures or outcomes in 19 large population-based cohorts in Japan. Data on sleep measurement methods and main study results were extracted.
resultsOf 102 studies in 12 cohorts, 75 (74%) studies examined subjective sleep quantity or quality based on questionnaires, and 27 (26%) used objective measures of sleep. Among subjective measures, sleep duration was frequently self-reported (57 studies in 10 cohorts), while sleep quality was directly (e.g., "Do you think you get enough sleep?") or indirectly asked as part of sleep-related scores such as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (51 studies in 10 cohorts). Regarding objective measures, the Circulatory Risk in Communities Study cohort measured 3% oxygen desaturation index by pulse oximetry (9 studies) and respiratory disturbance index by airflow monitor (1 study), Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort Study used actigraphy (1 study), Nagahama cohort used pulse oximetry (12 studies) and actigraphy (13 studies), and Tohoku Medical Megabank Project used actigraphy (1 study) and contactless biomotion sleep sensor (2 studies).
conclusionsPopulation-based cohort studies in Japan have predominantly relied on subjective measures of sleep, while the number of studies using objective measures has been increasing.
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.