Evidence Hub

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbance in children with neurodisabilities: a systematic review

Beresford B, McDaid C, Parker A, Scantlebury A, Spiers G, Fairhurst C, Hewitt C, Wright K et al.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2018

9 participants · 41 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the most appropriate ways to manage non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities (NDs).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of NHS-relevant pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to manage sleep disturbance in children and young people with NDs, who have non-respiratory sleep disturbance.

DATA SOURCES: Sixteen databases, including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE, were searched up to February 2017, and grey literature searches and hand-searches were conducted.

REVIEW METHODS: For pharmacological interventions, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. For non-pharmacological interventions, RCTs, non-randomised controlled studies and before-and-after studies were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed by two researchers. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Data on parents' and children's experiences of receiving a sleep disturbance intervention were collated into themes and reported narratively.

RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included. Sample sizes ranged from 5 to 244 participants. Thirteen RCTs evaluated oral melatonin. Twenty-six studies (12 RCTs and 14 before-and-after studies) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions, including comprehensive parent-directed tailored (n = 9) and non-tailored (n = 8) interventions, non-comprehensive parent-directed interventions (n = 2) and other…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 9 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free