| Title |
Sleep Disturbance and Cognitive Dysfunction in Multiple Sclerosis: a Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11910-018-0809-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abbey J. Hughes, Katherine M. Dunn, Trisha Chaffee |
| Abstract |
The present review summarizes recent research on the association between sleep disturbance and cognitive dysfunction in MS. Assessment methodology, domain-specific associations between sleep disturbance and cognitive dysfunction, and implications for future research and treatment are discussed. All 12 studies included in this review found significant associations between sleep disturbance and cognitive dysfunction; however, results varied considerably depending on the assessment method used and the cognitive domain assessed. Self-reported sleep disturbance generally predicted self-report but not objective measures of cognitive dysfunction. Objective sleep measures (e.g., polysomnography, actigraphy) generally predicted objective impairments in processing speed and attention; however, objective sleep disturbance was more variable in predicting performance in other cognitive domains (e.g., memory, executive function). Sleep disturbance may help predict future cognitive decline in MS. Results highlight the need to integrate sleep assessment into routine MS care. Interventions aimed treating sleep disturbance may offer promise for improving cognitive dysfunction in MS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Egypt | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 111 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 37 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,721,239
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#142
of 938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,103
of 444,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.