Research on sleep after stroke has focused mainly on sleep disordered breathing. However, the extend to which sleep physiology is altered in stroke survivors, how these alterations compare to healthy volunteers, and how sleep changes might affect recovery as well as physical and mental health has yet to be fully researched. Motivated by the view that a deeper understanding of sleep in stroke is needed to account for its role in health and well-being as well as its relevance for recovery and rehabilitation, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of polysomnographic studies comparing stroke to control populations.
Medline and PsycInfo databases were searched using "stroke" and words capturing polysomnographic parameters as search terms. This yielded 1692 abstracts for screening, with 15 meeting the criteria for systematic review and 9 for meta-analysis. Prisma best practice guidelines were followed for the systematic review; the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used for random effects modelling.
The meta-analysis revealed that patients with stroke have poorer sleep than controls. Patients had lower sleep efficiency (mean 75% vs 84%), shorter total-sleep-time (309.4 vs 340.3 min) and more wake-after-sleep-onset (97.2 vs 53.8 min). Patients also spend more time in stage 1 (13% vs 10%) and less time in stage 2 sleep (36% vs 45%) and slow-wave-sleep (10% vs 12%). No group differences were identified for REM sleep. The systematic review revealed a strong bias towards studies in the early recovery phase of stroke, with no study reporting specifically on patients in the chronic state. Moreover, participants in the control groups included community samples as well as other patients groups.
These results indicate poorer sleep in patients with stroke than controls. While strongly suggestive in nature, the evidence base is limited and methodologically diverse, and hands a clear mandate for further research. A particular need regards polysomnographic studies in chronic community-dwelling patients compared to age-matched individuals.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#649,185
of 29,868,835 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,163
of 207,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,682
of 317,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#208
of 5,459 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,868,835 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 317,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,459 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
