Evidence Hub

Efficacy of Melatonin for Sleep Disturbance in Children with Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

K. Barlow, Valerie G. Kirk, B. Brooks, M. Esser, K. Yeates, R. Zemek, A. Kirton, A. Mikrogianakis et al.

Journal of Neurotrauma, 2020

25 participants · 33 citations

Abstract

Sleep disturbances are commonly reported in children with persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). Melatonin treatment is often recommended, yet supporting evidence is scarce. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment with melatonin for sleep disturbance in youth with PPCS following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This article is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial of melatonin compared with placebo to treat PPCS. Youth (8–18 years of age) with PPCS and significant sleep-related problems (SRPs) at 4–6 weeks post-injury were eligible. Exclusion criteria: significant medical/psychiatric history; previous concussion/mTBI within 3 months. Treatment groups were: placebo, melatonin 3 mg, or melatonin 10 mg. Primary outcome was change in SRPs measured using the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory (PCSI) after 2 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included change in actigraphy sleep efficiency, duration, onset latency, and wake-after-sleep-onset. Behavior was measured using Behaviour Assessment for Children (2nd edition). Seventy-two participants (mean age 14.0, standard deviation [SD] = 2.6) years; 60% female) with PPCS and significant sleep disturbance were included in the secondary analysis: placebo (n = 22); melatonin 3 mg (n = 25); melatonin 10 mg (n = 25). Sixty-four participants had actigraphy data. SRPs decreased across all groups over time with a significant effect of melatonin 3 mg (3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1, 5.4) compared with placebo (7.4;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 25 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