Cited by 235Sleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and Wakefulness Research

Is a one-night stay in the lab really enough to conclude? First-night effect and night-to-night variability in polysomnographic recordings among different clinical population samples

Newell, Johan, Mairesse, Olivier, Verbanck, Paul, Neu, Daniel·2012·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

While polysomnography remains the current gold standard in sleep investigation, guidelines for single night versus consecutive recordings in a sleep laboratory have been disputed mainly because of two phenomena: the first-night effect and night-to-night variability. One hundred and twenty nine subjects, that underwent two consecutive nights of polysomnographic recording in a general University Hospital's sleep lab, were divided into four groups: sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBD), insomnia, movement and behavioral disorders and a healthy control (HC) group based on their complaints at admission and sleep study results. Sleep parameters of both consecutive two nights were compared and analyzed. All groups showed a significant first-night effect. However the latter seemed more pronounced in the insomnia group. Furthermore, a clinically significant intra-patient night-to-night variability was found for the apnea-hypopnea index in the SRBD-group. Due to the observed first-night effect among any subject group and the potential impact of night-to-night variability of the apnea-hypopnea index, we conclude that the clinical assessment of sleep disorders should be similar in every patient. Hence, the present study underlines the importance of two consecutive nights of polysomnographic recording as a potential reference standard for the execution of sleep investigations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.07.045

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 235

Authors
Newell, J., Mairesse, O., Verbanck, P., & Neu, D.
Affiliations
Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
Newell, Johan
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
200
Issue
2-3
Pages
795-801
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009831405
Cited by
235
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
11.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
Keywords
first-night effect, night-to-night variability, polysomnography, sleep-disordered breathing, insomnia, apnea-hypopnea index, sleep laboratory
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sleep Wake Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, Polysomnography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review