ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Sleep measurement and clinical impact in osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis: a scoping review.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo map how sleep has been assessed in osteoarthritis (OA) and/or inflammatory arthritis (IA), and to synthesise the evidence on the prevalence, characteristics, and relationships between sleep disturbances and these conditions.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review following the JBI guidelines and reported it following the PRISMA extension guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, grey literature sources, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Using the RU-SATED framework, we categorised and narratively synthesised sleep dimensions and assessment methods, and tracked the clinical impact of sleep disturbances in OA and IA.
results283 records (265 published studies; 18 registered trials) were included. They comprised 171 studies on IA, 77 on OA, and 17 on mixed populations, which were considered separately where appropriate. Sleep assessment methods varied across studies, favouring subjective over objective measurements. Studies primarily focused on sleep satisfaction, duration, efficiency, and sleepiness, overlooking regularity and timing. Global sleep disturbances were observed in ∼40-90% of OA and IA participants, with prevalence estimates varying substantially according to definitions, assessment methods, and study populations. A consistent pattern of discrepancies between subjective and objective sleep metrics was identified.
conclusionSleep disturbance is a prevalent and clinically significant feature of both OA and IA, yet it remains underrepresented in research and routine care. This review highlights substantial heterogeneity in sleep assessment and consistent discrepancies between subjective and objective measures. These findings support the need for standardised, multimethod approaches and for integrating sleep evaluation into rheumatology research and clinical guidelines.
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.