Global study reveals almost half of patients with skin disease suffer from sleep disturbances and identifies predictive factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep is a physiological process that accounts for almost one third of a person's life.1 Sleep disturbances (SDs) are distressing and disabling conditions that are frequently reported in cutaneous disorders (CD) with significant impairment in quality of life. However, predictive factors of SD in patients with CD has poorly been investigated.2-4 Our objective was to conduct a worldwide study in order to evaluate the prevalence of SD due to CD and identify predictive factors and impact on professional life. The 'ALL PROJECT'5 involves individuals, representative of the adult populations of 20 countries spread over all five continents [China 5000, USA 5000, Brazil 4001, India 3000, Australia 2000, France 4000, Italy 4000, Canada 2500; Denmark 1000; Germany 2000; Israel 2000; Kenya 500; Mexico 2500; Poland 2500; Portugal 1000; Senegal300; South Africa 1000; South Korea 2500; Spain 2000; UAE 750], which together accounts for over 50% of the world's population. In each of the 20 countries surveyed we conducted a population-based study on representative and extrapolable samples of the general population aged 16 years or more. The questionnaire gathered information about the patients' demographic and socio-demographic profiles. Patients were considered to have SD if they reported that they had difficulty in failing asleep because of their CD. A comparison of SD and patients without SD (non-SD) was used to evaluate predictors of SD: socio-demographic and clinical parameters and specifically on professional life. A total of 50,552 individuals participated in the survey, of which 17,627 (Tables 1 and 2) had CD. There were 7514 (42.6%) males and 10,113 (57.4%) females, respectively (mean age 39.65 ± 14.97. 16–96 years). A total of 7458 (42.3%) respondents reported SD due to a CD. The SD population was, on average younger than the non-SD population (mean age 39.22 ± 14.38 years vs. 39.96 ± 15.38 years; p = 0.001). Females had more frequently SD than males (40.8% vs 43.5%. p = 0.01). 10,169 (57.7%)respondents were considered to have no SD. Symptoms such as prickles, burning sensations, tingling (16.5% vs 14.2%, p 0.001388) skin pain (6.6% vs 3.6%1.4E-16) and pruritus (60.5% vs 50.8%, p < 0.0001) were predictive factors of SD. Subjects with SD reported more frequently a feeling of fatigue as soon in the waking up (80.70% vs 63.60%, p < 0.0001) a decrease in concentration and vigilance (73.40% vs 55.10%, p < 0.0001), periods of drowsiness during the day (82.60% vs 71.00%, p < 0.0001), a tingling sensation in the eyes (58.10% vs 42.20%, p: <0.0001) and repeated yawning (71.70% vs 57.90%, p < 0.0001). SD was significantly associated with detrimental impact on work life with feeling less productive in the activity (49.2% vs 19.4%, <0.0001). This is the first study to establish the impact of SD, which affects 42.3% % of respondents with CD. While CD that cause SD may be transient, long-term or recurrent, they all lead to significant psychological complications. We reported that SD in patients with CD was significantly associated with feeling of fatigue, decrease in concentration and vigilance, drowsiness, tingling sensation in the eyes and repeated yawning. These findings suggest the importance of early detection and management of SD in patients with CD which may contribute to detrimental impact on professional life. It is important to include questions about SD in the examinations of CD patients.2, 3, 6-9 SD must be regularly assessed and managed and guidelines are needed to address the multifactorial nature of SD in patients with CD. The authors acknowledge the technical support of Helene Chevalier (HC Conseil). This project was funded by Patient Centricity of Pierre Fabre. Catherine Baissac, Nuria Perez Cullell, Marketa Saint Aroman are employees of Pierre Fabre, France. Dr Charbel Skayem, Charles Taieb, Yaron Ben Hayon, Briuno Halioua, Marie Aleth Richard, Jonathan Taieb have no conflict of interests. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".