Cited by 236Sleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and Wakefulness Research

Paradoxical insomnia and subjective-objective sleep discrepancy: a review

Rezaie, Leeba, Fobian, Aaron D., McCall, William Vaughn, Khazaie, Habibolah·2018·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Paradoxical insomnia is characterized by discrepancy between subjective and objective assessments of sleep and is challenging to diagnosis and treat. Typically, polysomnographic (PSG) findings show significantly longer total sleep time than patients' report of sleep, and the difference between subjective and PSG sleep is greater than that seen in other insomnia subtypes. Subjective-objective sleep discrepancy may also present in different clinical pictures, as marked discrepancies between patients' perception of sleep and objective findings are common in a variety of medical, sleep and psychiatric disorders. However, there is a paucity of literature about the etiology and treatment of sleep discrepancy and paradoxical insomnia. Therefore, the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms of sleep discrepancy and paradoxical insomnia should be further investigated. Additionally, well-controlled clinical trials are needed to establish an evidence based intervention for treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2018.01.002

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Available research suggests that individuals with paradoxical insomnia appear to have increased brain activity during sleep, making them more aware of their environment and leading them to believe that they are awake when they are actually asleep.

    “The available research suggests that individuals with this insomnia subtype appear to have increased brain activity during sleep, making them more aware of their environment and leading them to believe that they are awake when they are actually asleep (117).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rezaie, L., Fobian, A. D., McCall, W. V., & Khazaie, H.
Affiliations
  • Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Augusta University (US)
Corresponding author
Khazaie, Habibolah
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
40
Pages
196-202
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2782114289
Cited by
236
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (MH095776)
  • American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (DIG-0-087-13)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1K23DK106570-01A1)
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
paradoxical insomnia, subjective-objective sleep discrepancy, total sleep time, polysomnography, insomnia subtypes, sleep perception, neurophysiological mechanisms, insomnia treatment
MeSH terms
Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Perception, Sleep, Polysomnography, Self Report

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