Cited by 6Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchSleep and related disordersSleep and Wakefulness Research

A comparative polysomnography analysis of sleep in healthy controls and patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.

Open access
Gotts, Zoe M., Deary, Vincent, Newton, Julia L., Ellis, Jason G.·2016·Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior

Abstract

Background: Sleep disturbance affects almost 95% of people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, existing studies of sleep in CFS have shown mixed results and methodological issues prevent between-study comparisons. Purpose: To redress this, the present study aimed to investigate whether there are differences in the sleep of patients with CFS and healthy controls, using a comparative analysis of polysomnography over three consecutive nights. Methods: Twenty-two patients with CFS (1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria) and 22 healthy controls underwent three nights of polysomnographic sleep assessment. Groups were compared on their objective sleep variables derived from the third night of assessment, to allow for participant adaptation to the sleep study. Results: 9.1% of patients met criteria for an objectively verifiable sleep disorder. Differences in sleep were observed between CFS patients and healthy controls on four objectively derived sleep variables (wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency, percentage wake and REM Latency). In addition, people with CFS reported more severe symptoms of insomnia than healthy controls. Conclusions: The study reports on key differences in sleep between people with CFS and healthy individuals. The potential presence of a sleep disorder in this patient population is high, it is therefore important that during early evaluation, a detailed history of sleep is taken to rule out a sleep disorder in CFS. In addition, patients with CFS show poorer sleep as defined by objectively derived measures and also self-report poorer quality sleep. Improving sleep is a potential treatment target in CFS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/21641846.2016.1167470

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gotts, Z. M., Deary, V., Newton, J. L., & Ellis, J. G.
Affiliations
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Gotts, Zoe M.
Venue
Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior
Published
2016-04-02
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
80-93
ISSN
  • 2164-1846 (ISSN-L)
  • 2164-1862
OpenAlex
W2340849724
Cited by
6
References
49
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Fatigue Biomedicine Health & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Council for Scientific Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, sleep disorders, polysomnography, wake after sleep onset, sleep efficiency, REM latency, insomnia, objective sleep measures, subjective sleep quality

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