ReviewCureus2026
Vortioxetine-Associated Rapid Eye Movement (REM) Sleep Alterations: A Focused Narrative Review of Human Polysomnographic Evidence.
Review in Cureus, 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
This focused narrative review examines the relationship between vortioxetine and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and considers the potential clinical significance of REM-related changes observed during treatment. Direct human polysomnographic evidence remains very limited and is derived principally from two studies. The review integrates relevant sleep neurobiology, vortioxetine pharmacology, and human polysomnographic findings while distinguishing biological plausibility from demonstrated clinical significance. The available evidence is interpreted cautiously because changes in individual REM measures do not necessarily represent a uniform alteration of REM physiology and an objective polysomnographic effect should not be assumed to reflect a therapeutic mechanism. At present, vortioxetine-associated REM changes are best regarded as a pharmacodynamic effect whose persistence, dose dependence, underlying mechanism, and clinical relevance remain uncertain. These changes have not been established as surrogate markers of antidepressant response or other meaningful patient outcomes. Further prospective research integrating objective sleep measures with symptoms, subjective sleep quality, daytime functioning, cognition, and longer-term outcomes is needed to clarify the significance of vortioxetine-associated REM alterations.
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.