Evidence Hub

Sleep in children with Smith-Magenis syndrome; a case-control actigraphy study

J. Trickett, C. Oliver, M. Heald, H. Denyer, Andrew D. R. Surtees, E. Clarkson, P. Gringras, C. Richards

Sleep, 2020

20 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

1) To compare both actigraphy and questionnaire assessed sleep quality and timing in children with Smith-Magenis syndrome (SMS) to a chronologically age-matched typically developing (TD) group. 2) To explore associations between age, nocturnal and diurnal sleep quality and daytime behaviour.

METHODS

Seven nights of actigraphy data were collected from 20 children with SMS (mean age 8.70; SD 2.70) and 20 TD children. Daily parent/teacher ratings of behaviour and sleepiness were obtained. Mixed linear modelling was used to explore associations between total sleep time and daytime naps and behaviour.

RESULTS

Sleep in children with SMS was characterised by shorter total sleep time (TST), extended night waking, shorter sleep onset, more daytime naps and earlier morning waking compared to the TD group. Considerable inter-daily and inter-individual variability in sleep quality was found in the SMS group, so caution in generalising results is required. An expected inverse association between age and TST was found in the TD group, but no significant association was found for the SMS group. No between group differences in sleep hygiene practices were identified. A bidirectional negative association between TST and nap duration was found for the SMS group. In the SMS group increased afternoon sleepiness was associated with increased irritability (p=.007) and overactivity (p=.005).

CONCLUSION

These findings evidence poor sleep quality in SMS and the need to implement…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 20 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