Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Practice Parameters for the Evaluation of Chronic Insomnia

Chesson, Andrew, Hartse, Kristyna, Anderson, W. McDowell, Davila, David, Johnson, Stephen, Littner, Michael, Wise, Merrill, Rafecas, Jose·2000·Sleep
DOI 10.1093/sleep/23.2.1k
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chronic insomnia is the most common sleep complaint which health care practitioners must confront. Most insomnia patients are not, however, seen by sleep physicians but rather by a variety of primary care physicians. There is little agreement concerning methods for effective assessment and subsequent differential diagnosis of this pervasive problem. The most common basis for diagnosis and subsequent treatment has been the practitioner's clinical impression from an unstructured interview. No systematic, evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis exist for chronic insomnia. This practice parameter paper presents recommendations for the evaluation of chronic insomnia based on the evidence in the accompanying review paper. We recommend use of these parameters by the sleep community, but even more importantly, hope the large number of primary care physicians providing this care can benefit from their use. Conclusions reached in these practice parameters include the following recommendations for the evaluation of chronic insomnia. Since the complaint of insomnia is so widespread and since patients may overlook the impact of poor sleep quality on daily functioning, the health care practitioner should screen for a history of sleep difficulty. This evaluation should include a sleep history focused on common sleep disorders to identify primary and secondary insomnias. Polysomnography, and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) should not be routinely used to screen or diagnose patients with insomnia complaints. However, the complaint of insomnia does not preclude the appropriate use of these tests for diagnosis of specific sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea, periodic limb movement disorder, and narcolepsy that may be present in patients with insomnia. There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether portable sleep studies, actigraphy, or other alternative assessment measures including static charge beds are effective in the evaluation of insomnia complaints. Instruments such as sleep logs, self-administered questionnaires, symptom checklist, or psychological screening tests may be of benefit to discriminate insomnia patients from normals, but these instruments have not been shown to differentiate subtypes of insomnia complaints.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/sleep/23.2.1k

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chesson, A., Hartse, K., Anderson, W. M., Davila, D., Johnson, S., Littner, M., Wise, M., & Rafecas, J.
Venue
Sleep
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-01
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
1-5
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
DOI
10.1093/sleep/23.2.1k
OpenAlex
W2914221435
Cited by
332
References
0
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.