Cited by 393Sleep and related disordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access

Abstract

Almost 70% of patients with mental disorders report sleep difficulties and 30% fulfill the criteria for insomnia disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line treatment for insomnia according to current treatment guidelines. Despite this circumstance, insomnia is frequently treated only pharmacologically especially in patients with mental disorders. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of CBT-I in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia on two outcome parameters: the severity of insomnia and mental health. The databases PubMed, CINHAL (Ebsco) und PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched for randomized controlled trials on adult patients with comorbid insomnia and any mental disorder comparing CBT-I to placebo, waitlist or treatment as usual using self-rating questionnaires as outcomes for either insomnia or mental health or both. The search resulted in 1994 records after duplicate removal of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for the meta-analysis. The comorbidities were depression (eight studies, 491 patients), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, four studies, 216 patients), alcohol dependency (three studies, 79 patients), bipolar disorder (one study, 58 patients), psychosis (one study, 50 patients) and mixed comorbidities within one study (five studies, 189 patients). The effect sizes for the reduction of insomnia severity post treatment were 0.5 (confidence interval, CI, 0.3-0.8) for patients with depression, 1.5 (CI 1.0-1.9) for patients with PTSD, 1.4 (CI 0.9-1.9) for patients with alcohol dependency, 1.2 (CI 0.8-1.7) for patients with psychosis/bipolar disorder, and 0.8 (CI 0.1-1.6) for patients with mixed comorbidities. Effect sizes for the reduction of insomnia severity were moderate to large at follow-up. Regarding the effects on comorbid symptom severity, effect sizes directly after treatment were 0.5 (CI 0.1-0.8) for depression, 1.3 (CI 0.6-1.9) for PTSD, 0.9 (CI 0.3-1.4) for alcohol dependency in only one study, 0.3 (CI -0.1 - 0.7, insignificant) for psychosis/bipolar, and 0.8 (CI 0.1-1.5) for mixed comorbidities. There were no significant effects on comorbid symptoms at follow-up. Together, these significant, stable medium to large effects indicate that CBT-I is an effective treatment for patients with insomnia and a comorbid mental disorder, especially depression, PTSD and alcohol dependency. CBT-I is also an effective add-on treatment with the aim of improving mental health in patients with depression, PTSD, and symptom severity in outpatients with mixed diagnoses. Thus, in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia, given the many side effects of medication, CBT-I should be considered as a first-line treatment.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 RCTs found that CBT-I is effective for insomnia in patients with comorbid mental disorders, with large post-treatment reductions in insomnia severity and moderate improvements in mental health. Effects were strongest for depression, PTSD, and alcohol dependency, but mental-health effects were generally not significant at follow-up.

Key findings

  • Across 22 RCTs, CBT-I reduced insomnia severity versus control post-treatment (Hedges’ g 1.0, CI 0.7–1.2) and at first follow-up (g 0.8, CI 0.4–1.2); mental health improved post-treatment (g 0.7, CI 0.4–0.9) and at first follow-up (g 0.5, CI 0.2–0.7).
  • Post-treatment insomnia severity effect sizes by subgroup were: depression 0.5 (CI 0.3–0.8), PTSD 1.5 (CI 1.0–1.9), alcohol dependency 1.4 (CI 0.9–1.9), psychosis/bipolar 1.2 (CI 0.8–1.7), and mixed comorbidities 0.8 (CI 0.1–1.6).
  • Post-treatment mental-health effect sizes were: depression 0.5 (CI 0.1–0.8), PTSD 1.3 (CI 0.6–1.9), alcohol dependency 0.9 (CI 0.3–1.4) in only one study, psychosis/bipolar 0.3 (CI −0.1–0.7, insignificant), and mixed comorbidities 0.8 (CI 0.1–1.5); no significant effects on comorbid symptoms at follow-up.
  • Risk of bias was low for 5 studies, high for 4, and moderate for 13; Egger tests were significant for insomnia and comorbidity post-treatment, indicating potential publication bias.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted per MOOSE and PRISMA, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021249929); PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched through October 2021, yielding 1994 records after duplicate removal and 22 included RCTs.
  • Inclusion required adults ≥18 years with insomnia and a mental disorder diagnosed by DSM/ICD/ICSD or validated questionnaire cutoff, CBT-I containing sleep restriction or stimulus control, a control condition of no treatment/placebo/waitlist/TAU, and validated self-rating outcomes for insomnia and/or mental health.
  • Random-effects meta-analysis used R package Metafor; Hedges’ g compared post-treatment and first follow-up means between CBT-I and control; I² assessed heterogeneity; Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and funnel plots/Egger tests were used.

Limitations

  • Stated: most included trials had short follow-up periods, mostly one follow-up 3–6 months after treatment; 16 of 22 studies had sample sizes ≤50; potential publication bias was indicated; three studies used a quality-of-life measure instead of a specific psychiatric measure; many trials were in specialist research settings with selected samples; risk-of-bias ratings for all but two studies were performed by only one rater; only six of 22 studies reported adverse events; several comorbidities remain under-researched.
  • Evident from the text: heterogeneity was high in the total sample (I² over 50% at both time points and both outcomes), and some subgroup analyses relied on very few studies (e.g., one study each for bipolar disorder and psychosis, and only one study for alcohol dependency mental-health outcome).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101597

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

29 Not checked yet · 29 Own result · 10 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 6 No basis given

Verify all 34 references — free account

Show all 38 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 31
42 of 42
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Control conditions receiving no treatment, placebo, waitlist, or treatment as usual without specific sleep treatment are valid comparators for estimating CBT-I efficacy.

    “Each study had to include a control group receiving no treatment, placebo, waitlist or treatment as usual without specific sleep treatment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pooling heterogeneous mental health outcome measures across different mental disorders yields a meaningful overall effect estimate.

    “The outcome measure for mental health were heterogeneous due to the heterogeneity of the mental disorders themselves and due to different instruments chosen to assess the same mental disorder in the individual primary studies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included primary studies' self-rating questionnaires validly measure the severity of insomnia and mental disorders.

    “The severity of insomnia and the mental disorder had to be assessed with validated self-rating questionnaires (not sleep diaries only).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There is a distribution of true effect sizes rather than a single true effect size.

    “Assuming that there is a distribution of true effect sizes rather than a single true effect size, a random-effects model was selected for meta-analytic pooling of the primary studies as recommended by Borenstein et al. [30].”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Diagnoses of insomnia and mental disorders based on DSM, ICD, ICSD, or validated self-rating questionnaire cutoffs are valid.

    “Diagnosis of insomnia and the mental disorder had to be based on a version of DSM (DSM III or higher) or ICD or the International Classification of sleep disorders (ICSD) for insomnia or an abnormal score, exceeding the cutoff for pathology, in a validated self-rating questionnaire.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies' treatment packages labeled CBT-I are sufficiently similar to pool.

    “Twenty out of 22 studies investigated a treatment package including behavioral treatment, cognitive restructuring and relaxation.The two remaining studies used brief behavioral treatment including only behavioral treatment components (sleep restriction and stimulus control) [39,40].”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hallmarks of insomnia are subjective sleep disturbances and dysfunctional thoughts and attitudes about sleep.

    “Hallmarks of insomnia are subjective sleep disturbances and dysfunctional thoughts and attitudes about sleep.”
7 of 7

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–393 of 393

Metadata

Authors
Hertenstein, E., Trinca, E., Wunderlin, M., Schneider, C. L., Züst, M. A., Fehér, K. D., Su, T., Straten, A. V., Berger, T., Baglioni, C., Johann, A., Spiegelhalder, K., Riemann, D., Feige, B., & Nissen, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • GGZ inGeest (NL)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Hertenstein, Elisabeth
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
62
Pages
101597
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4211223218
Cited by
391
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 153 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 9
FWCI
11.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, insomnia, mental illness, comorbid insomnia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol dependency, bipolar disorder, psychosis, insomnia severity, mental health, non-pharmacological treatment, treatment discontinuation, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Comorbidity, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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