Behavioral interventions for improving sleep outcomes in menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: Perimenopausal and postmenopausal women commonly report sleep disruption and insomnia. Behavioral interventions may be safe alternatives for patients who are unwilling to begin pharmacological treatments because of adverse effects, contraindications, or personal preference. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of behavioral interventions on sleep outcomes among perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, as measured using standardized scales and objective methods (polysomnography, actigraphy). The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety of these methods through occurrence of adverse events. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Searches were performed within MEDLINE (OVID interface, 1946 onward), Embase (OVID interface, 1974 onward), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and Web of Science (Core collection) using a search strategy developed in consultation with a health sciences librarian. Title/abstract and full-text screenings were performed in duplicate, and relevant studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria set to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of behavioral interventions on sleep quality. Risk of bias assessments were done using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. FINDINGS: Nineteen articles reporting results from 16 randomized controlled trials were included, representing a total of 2,108 perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Overall, behavioral interventions showed a statistically significant effect on sleep outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.88 to -0.35; I2 = 93.4%). Subgroup analyses revealed that cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD, -0.40; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.11; I2 = 72.7%), physical exercise (SMD, -0.57; 95% CI, -0.94 to -0.21; I2 = 94.0%), and mindfulness/relaxation (SMD, -1.28; 95% CI, -2.20 to -0.37; I2 = 96.0%) improved sleep, as measured using both subjective (eg, Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index) and objective measures. Low-intensity (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.24; I2 = 96.8) and moderate-intensity exercise (SMD, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.08; I2 = 0.0%) also improved sleep outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. Overall risk of bias ranged from some concern to serious, and the certainty of the body of evidence was assessed to be of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This meta-analysis provides evidence that behavioral interventions, specifically, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical exercise, and mindfulness/relaxation, are effective treatments for improving sleep outcomes among perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,033 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».