ReviewSleep medicine reviews2026
What do we know about the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in women? A review of the evidence.
Review in Sleep medicine reviews, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) is the most widely used subjective measure of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), yet its psychometric validity across sexes has not been systematically evaluated. This narrative review examined published studies assessing sex differences in the psychometric properties of the ESS and evaluated whether sufficient evidence supports its validity for use in women. Of 288 screened articles, 56 evaluated ESS psychometrics and 10 assessed sex differences. No study had as its primary aim the evaluation of sex-based measurement validity. Most investigations relied on univariate comparisons or internal consistency estimates and reported no significant sex differences in ESS total scores. A few studies used sound methods to identify sex-related differences in individual items, optimal cut-scores, score stability, and associations with objective sleep apnea indices. However, no studies formally tested measurement invariance between sexes for the construct of sleepiness. Methods varied substantially across studies, limiting comparability. Although the ESS demonstrates overall reliability and unidimensionality, evidence supporting sex equivalence is limited. Emerging item-level differences suggest potential measurement non-equivalence that may obscure sex-specific symptom presentation, particularly in women with obstructive sleep apnea. Rigorous sex-specific psychometric evaluation is needed to ensure accurate assessment and equitable clinical decision-making.
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.