ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The assessment of sleep disturbances in cancer patients when measured with single items.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Sleep disturbances are frequently observed in cancer patients. In addition to validated multi-item scales for assessing sleep disturbances, there are also single-item measures. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which such ultra-short single-item assessments of sleep disturbances provide useful information in cancer patients. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study involving a sample of 970 patients with newly diagnosed cancer (mean age: 60.3 years; 46.8% women; mixed cancer diagnoses). We analyzed sleep disturbances using three single-item measures: the sleep items of the European-Organization-For-Research-And-Treatment-Of-Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the dichotomous sleep item included in the Problem List of the Distress Thermometer. Samples of the general population were used as comparison groups. Results: The sleep quality of the cancer patients was markedly poorer than that of the general population, with effect sizes between 0.67 and 0.74. The correlations between the sleep measures in the patients' sample were between 0.61 and 0.74. The three sleep measures provided similar results regarding group differences based on sociodemographic and clinical variables, and their correlations with other scales of quality of life and mental health were also similar. Conclusion: Despite the lower reliability of the single-item measures of sleep quality in comparison with multi-item scales, these single items can help identify groups of patients who are at increased risk of sleep disturbances and the factors that contribute to poor sleep.
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.