RNMeta-AnalysisClinical nursing research2022

Prevalence of Sleep Disturbance in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mohammed Al Maqbali, Mohammed Al Sinani, Ahmad Alsayed and 1 others

PMID 35484919

WHAT IT FOUND

Sleep disturbance was found in 26,448 of 46,279 cancer patients across 160 studies, an overall estimate of 60.7%.

Nurses should ask about sleep routinely and use a sleep scale, not one question.

Key findings

01The pooled prevalence of sleep disturbance was 60.7%, based on 26,448 of 46,279 participants.

02Advanced cancer studies reported a pooled prevalence of 70.8%, and localized cancer studies reported 57.7%.

03Prevalence differed by scale: 64% in PSQI studies, 61.5% in GSDS studies and 26.9% in ESS studies.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The included studies were observational surveys, not trials, so they cannot show cause or treatment effect. The pooled estimate had very high heterogeneity (I2=96.4%), so the average hides wide differences between studies. Publication bias was detected, although the trim-and-fill adjustment did not materially change the pooled estimate. Different sleep scales and cut-off scores were used, and the review reported only total questionnaire scores, not specific sleep dimensions. Only English-language studies were included, and some relevant studies may have been missed. Most studies were rated moderate risk of bias, not low.

Declared interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest and received no financial support for the work.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 60.7% estimate as proof that cancer causes sleep disturbance or that a sleep intervention works. The review combined observational surveys, used different scales and cut-offs, had very high heterogeneity, and detected publication bias.

Read it on PubMed →