Cited by 704Sleep and related disordersDigital Mental Health InterventionsObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Efficacy of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia— a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Zachariae, Robert, Lyby, Marlene S., Ritterband, Lee M., O'Toole, Mia S.·2016·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown efficacious, but the challenge remains to make it available and accessible in order to meet population needs. Delivering CBT-I over the internet (eCBT-I) may be one method to overcome this challenge. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of eCBT-I and the moderating influence of various study characteristics. Two researchers independently searched key electronic databases (1991 to June 2015), selected eligible publications, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality. Eleven randomized controlled trials examining a total of 1460 participants were included. Results showed that eCBT-I improved insomnia severity, sleep efficiency, subjective sleep quality, wake after sleep onset, sleep onset latency, total sleep time, and number of nocturnal awakenings at post-treatment, with effect sizes (Hedges's g) ranging from 0.21 to 1.09. The effects were comparable to those found for face-to-face CBT-I, and were generally maintained at 4-48 wk follow-up. Moderator analyses showed that longer treatment duration and higher degree of personal clinical support were associated with larger effect sizes, and that larger study dropout in the intervention group was associated with smaller effect sizes. In conclusion, internet-delivered CBT-I appears efficacious and can be considered a viable option in the treatment of insomnia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2015.10.004

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zachariae, R., Lyby, M. S., Ritterband, L. M., & O'Toole, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Zachariae, Robert
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
30
Pages
1-10
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1863769327
Cited by
704
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 136 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, insomnia, treatment efficacy, sleep efficiency, sleep quality, wake after sleep onset, sleep latency, nocturnal awakenings, treatment duration, follow-up maintenance, dropout
MeSH terms
Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Internet

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