Cited by 2,172Sleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The consensus sleep diary: standardizing prospective sleep self-monitoring

Open access
Carney, Colleen E., Buysse, Daniel J., Ancoli-Israel, Sonia, Edinger, Jack D., Krystal, Andrew D., Lichstein, Kenneth L., Morin, Charles M.·2012·Sleep

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To present an expert consensus, standardized, patient-informed sleep diary. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sleep diaries from the original expert panel of 25 attendees of the Pittsburgh Assessment Conference(1) were collected and reviewed. A smaller subset of experts formed a committee and reviewed the compiled diaries. Items deemed essential were included in a Core sleep diary, and those deemed optional were retained for an expanded diary. Secondly, optional items would be available in other versions. A draft of the Core and optional versions along with a feedback questionnaire were sent to members of the Pittsburgh Assessment Conference. The feedback from the group was integrated and the diary drafts were subjected to 6 focus groups composed of good sleepers, people with insomnia, and people with sleep apnea. The data were summarized into themes and changes to the drafts were made in response to the focus groups. The resultant draft was evaluated by another focus group and subjected to lexile analyses. The lexile analyses suggested that the Core diary instructions are at a sixth-grade reading level and the Core diary was written at a third-grade reading level. CONCLUSIONS: The Consensus Sleep Diary was the result of collaborations with insomnia experts and potential users. The adoption of a standard sleep diary for insomnia will facilitate comparisons across studies and advance the field. The proposed diary is intended as a living document which still needs to be tested, refined, and validated.

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 · 10.5665/sleep.1642

Cites

25 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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.

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]Stenner B, Holusm I, Smith DR, Smith M. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics; 1988. The Lexile framework. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?Stenner%20B,%20Holusm%20I,%20Smith%20DR,%20Smith%20M.%20Durham,%20NC:%20MetaMetrics;%201988.%20The%20Lexile%20framework.)]
  2. [20]Edinger JD, Olsen MK, Stechuchak KM, et al. Reliability and validity of the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders for Insomnia Screening. Sleep. 2009;32:A265. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Sleep&title=Reliability%20and%20validity%20of%20the%20Duke%20Structured%20Interview%20for%20Sleep%20Disorders%20for%20Insomnia%20Screening&author=JD%20Edinger&author=MK%20Olsen&author=KM%20Stechuchak&volume=32&publication_year=2009&pages=A265&)]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carney, C. E., Buysse, D. J., Ancoli-Israel, S., Edinger, J. D., Krystal, A. D., Lichstein, K. L., & Morin, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Université Laval (CA)
Corresponding author
Carney, Colleen E.
Venue
Sleep
Published
2012-02
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
287-302
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
OpenAlex
W2012435382
Cited by
2,172
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 199 · 2025: 241 · 2024: 246 · 2023: 230 · 2022: 236 · 2021: 249 · 2020: 165 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 113 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 15
FWCI
69.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SLEEP (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Corpus Université Laval (Université Laval) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Sanofi
  • Johnson and Johnson
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MT42504)
  • National Institute on Aging (K24AG000972, #AG14738, R01AG014738, R01AG008415, AG 00972, AG 08415, AG26177)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL073259, HL-073259)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH#60413, R01MH024652, R01MH067057, MH 24652, R01MH060413, MH67057, R37MH024652, MH30915)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA13574, R01DA013574)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 112035, R01CA112035)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR031980)
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
sleep diary, insomnia, sleep apnea, expert consensus, standardized assessment tools, focus groups, readability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, Sleep Wake Disorders, Focus Groups, Consensus, Young Adult, Health Records, Personal, Self Report

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