The relationship between duration and quality of sleep and upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are common, mostly self-limiting, but result in inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Poor sleep is cited as a factor predisposing to URTIs, but the evidence is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review whether sleep duration and quality influence the frequency and duration of URTIs. METHODS: Three databases and bibliographies of included papers were searched for studies assessing associations between sleep duration or quality and URTIs. We performed dual title and abstract selection, discussed full-text exclusion decisions and completed 50% of data extraction in duplicate. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale assessed study quality and we estimated odds ratios (ORs) using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Searches identified 5146 papers. Eleven met inclusion criteria, with nine included in meta-analyses: four good, two fair and five poor for risk of bias. Compared to study defined 'normal' sleep duration, shorter sleep was associated with increased URTIs (OR: 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.42, I2: 11%, P < 0.001) and longer sleep was not significantly associated (OR: 1.11 95% CI: 0.99-1.23, I2: 0%, P = 0.070). Sensitivity analyses using a 7- to 9-hour baseline found that sleeping shorter than 7-9 hours was associated with increased URTIs (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22-1.41, I2: 0%, P < 0.001). Sleeping longer than 7-9 hours was non-significantly associated with increased URTIs (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00-1.33, I2: 0%, P = 0.050, respectively). We were unable to pool sleep quality studies. No studies reported on sleep duration and URTI severity or duration. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced sleep, particularly shorter than 7-9 hours, is associated with increased URTIs. Strategies improving sleep should be explored to prevent URTIs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".