Use of melatonin in children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Melatonin prescriptions for children and adolescents have increased substantially during the last decade. Existing clinical recommendations focus on melatonin as a treatment for insomnia related to neurodevelopmental disorders. To help guide clinical decision-making, we aimed to construct a recommendation on the use of melatonin in children and adolescents aged 5–20 years with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Methods A systematic search for guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Guidelines International Network, Trip Database, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, European Sleep Research Society and Scandinavian Health Authorities databases. A search for adverse events in otherwise healthy children and adolescents was also performed. The latest search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and adverse events was performed on March 18, 2023. The latest search for RCTs was performed on to February 6, 2023. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Eligible participants were children and adolescents (5–20 years of age) with idiopathic chronic insomnia, in whom sleep hygiene practices have been inadequate and melatonin was tested. There were no restrictions on dosage, duration of treatment, time of consumption, or release formula. Primary outcomes were quality of sleep, daytime functioning and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included total sleep time, sleep latency, awakenings, drowsiness, quality of life, all-cause dropouts, and non-serious adverse events. Outcomes were assessed at different time points to assess short-term and long-term effects. Meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random-effects model and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. If possible, funnel plots would be constructed to investigate publication bias. Heterogeneity was calculated via I 2 statistics. A multidisciplinary guideline panel formulated the recommendation according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The certainty of evidence was considered either high, moderate, low or very low depending on the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or publication bias. The evidence-to-decision framework was subsequently used to discuss the feasibility and acceptance of the constructed recommendation alongside the impact on resources and equity. The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings We included eight RCTs with 419 children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Melatonin led to a moderate increase in total sleep time by 30.33 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.96–41.70, 4 studies, I 2 = 0%) and a moderate reduction in sleep latency by 18.03 min (95% CI −26.61 to −9.44, 3 studies, I 2 = 0%), both as assessed by sleep diary. No other beneficial effects were found. None of the studies provided information on serious adverse events, yet the number of participants experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 3.44, 95% CI 1.25–9.42, 4 studies, I 2 = 0%). Funnel plots were not constructed due to the low number of studies. The certainty of evidence was very low on the quality of sleep and low for daytime functioning. Interpretation Evidence of very low certainty shows that benefits are limited and unwanted events are likely when melatonin is used to treat otherwise healthy children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. Melatonin should never be the first choice of treatment for this particular population, yet carefully monitored short-term use may be considered if sleep hygiene practices and non-pharmacological interventions have proven inadequate, and only if daytime function is compromised. Funding The Danish Health Authority and the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital supported by the Oak Foundation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".