Integrative Approaches to Sleep Management in Skin Disease: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatological conditions, especially when severe, can lead to sleep disturbances that affect a patient's quality of life. However, limited research exists on the efficacy of treatments for improving sleep parameters in skin conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature on dermatological conditions and the treatments available for improving sleep parameters. METHODS: A literature review was performed using the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from 1945 to 2021. After filtering based on our exclusion criteria, studies were graded using the SORT (Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy) algorithm, and only those receiving a grade of "2" or better were included. RESULTS: In total, 25 treatment studies (n=11,025) assessing sleep parameters related to dermatological conditions were found. Dupilumab appeared to be the best-supported and most effective treatment for improving sleep in atopic dermatitis (AD) but had frequent adverse effects. Topical treatments for AD were mostly ineffective, but procedural treatments showed some promise. Treatments for other conditions appeared efficacious. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of sleep parameter changes in dermatological treatments is predominantly restricted to AD. Systemic interventions such as dupilumab and procedural interventions were the most efficacious. Sleep changes in other dermatoses were limited by a paucity of available studies. The inclusion of a sleep assessment component to a broader range of dermatological treatment studies is warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".