Cited by 33Sleep and related disordersSleep and Wakefulness ResearchObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Limits of Self-report in Assessing Sleep Terrors in a Population Survey

Hublin, Christer, Kaprio, Jaakko, Partinen, Markku, Koskenvuo, Markku·1999·Sleep

Abstract

Sleep terrors are less frequent compared to other parasomnias, and there are no prevalence studies on adults. We performed a questionnaire study in a well-defined population-based sample, the Finnish Twin Cohort. The study population consisted of 11,220 subjects aged 33-60 years, responding to questions on the frequency of sleep terrors in childhood and as adults. In the first questionnaire about 9% reported sleep terrors often or sometimes in childhood, and 3.5% at least once monthly as adults. However, in a second more-detailed questionnaire, only 1% of those with at-least-monthly attacks in adulthood presented with features compatible with the minimal diagnostic criteria for sleep terrors of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders. There was also a strong correlation between current occurrence of nightmares and the report of sleep terrors. Although a clinically definable entity, sleep terrors seem to be unknown to lay people, at least in Finland. Therefore, the use of single items or brief question series on sleep terrors may give inaccurate results in questionnaires. An interview of a person who has witnessed the nocturnal attack suspected to be sleep terror is essential because of the patient's impaired recall of the episode. Our results also support the general view that sleep terrors are rare in adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/sleep/22.1.89

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Sleep terrors are much more common in monozygotic versus dizygotic twins.

    “The condition is much more common in monozygotic versus dizygotic twins [32, 51, 59].”

    From Sleep Terrors: An Updated Review (2020) · cites this paper as [59]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hublin, C., Kaprio, J., Partinen, M., & Koskenvuo, M.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Hublin, Christer
Venue
Sleep
Published
1999-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
89-93
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
OpenAlex
W119898604
Cited by
33
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • SLEEP (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Finska Läkaresällskapet
  • Academy of Finland (42044)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
sleep terrors, parasomnias, self-report validity, prevalence, Finnish Twin Cohort, nightmares, diagnostic criteria, International Classification of Sleep Disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Finland, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep Wake Disorders, Cohort Studies

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