The impact of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia on objective sleep parameters: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Abstract
It is well-established that cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) improves self-reported sleep disturbance, however the impact on objective sleep is less clear. This meta-analysis aimed to quantify the impact of multi-component CBT-I on objective measures of sleep, indexed via polysomnography (PSG) and actigraphy. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Following appraisal for risk of bias, extracted data were meta-analysed using random-effects models. The quality of the literature was generally high, although reporting of methodological detail varied markedly between studies. Meta-analyses found no evidence that CBT-I reliably improves PSG-defined sleep parameters. Actigraphy evidence was more mixed; with a small effect for reduction in sleep onset latency (Hedge's g = -0.28 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.51 to -0.05], p = 0.018) and a moderate effect for reduction in total sleep time (TST) (Hedge's g = -0.51 [95% CI -0.75 to -0.26], p < 0.001). In contrast, and consistent with recent meta-analyses, CBT-I was associated with robust improvements in diary measures of sleep initiation and maintenance (Hedge's g range = 0.50 to 0.79) but not TST. While the literature is small and still developing, the sleep benefits of CBT-I are more clearly expressed in the subjective versus objective domain.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
CBT-I does not improve polysomnography-defined sleep parameters.
“CBT-I does not improve polysomnography-defined sleep parameters [23].”
From The effects of exercise on sleep in unipolar depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 171
- Authors
- Mitchell, L. J., Bisdounis, L., Ballesio, A., Omlin, X., & Kyle, S. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Kyle, Simon D.
- Venue
- Sleep Medicine Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 47
- Pages
- 90-102
- ISSN
- 1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2951889707
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- International Brain Research Organization
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
- National Institute for Health Research
- Erasmus+
- Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, polysomnography, actigraphy, sleep latency, total sleep time, sleep maintenance, sleep initiation
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Sleep, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome
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