ArticlePatient related outcome measures2026
Comparison of two self-reported tools for assessment of sleep quality.
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: An easy to administer tool is needed for clinical assessment of sleep quality by healthcare providers. This study compared two brief, validated sleep questionnaires in order to identify an appropriate tool for clinical assessment. Methods: Women (N = 121) between the ages of 25-89 years (60.3 ± 15.9 years) completed the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, the Restorative Sleep Questionnaire, and associated measures of quality of life, well-being, stress, and physical activity. Results: There were no differences in sleep quality assessments between the two questionnaires for sleep last night (daily), during the past 7 days (weekly), or during the past 4 weeks (monthly). Overall, participants reported good daily, weekly, and monthly sleep quality (mean scores 71.1-75.3 out of 100), although both questionnaires assessed significantly better ( Conclusions: For overall identification and assessment of good versus poor sleep quality, clinicians can choose either the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire or the Restorative Sleep Questionnaire. However, caution may be needed for short-term (daily, weekly) assessment for which the Restorative Sleep Questionnaire may be more appropriate due to fewer ceiling effects.
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.