ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of nonpharmacological interventions for sleep disturbance among pregnant women: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSleep disturbance is prevalent in pregnancy and can result in significant adverse outcomes for women and their infants. Numerous clinical trials of various nonpharmacotherapies for preventing or treating sleep disturbances have been conducted previously; however, previous systematic reviews with direct comparisons have failed to demonstrate the best options for different kinds of treatments. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to explore the comparative efficacy and acceptability of nonpharmacological interventions for sleep disturbances in pregnancy and to assist clinical decision-making through ranking interventions concerning critical clinical outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two reviewers will systematically search five major bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and registries for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any nonpharmacological interventions for sleep disturbances from inception to 24 June 2025. To ensure the search is up to date, we will also perform an updated search up to the time of final analysis submission. Primary outcomes will consider efficacy (the overall mean change of any predefined sleep disturbances, including sleep quality, sleep duration and sleep-specific symptoms) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). The risk of bias of each included RCT will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool (RoB2). Traditional pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs will be performed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of different nonpharmacological interventions. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve for the outcomes of interest will be used to rank the competing interventions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used to assess the quality of evidence associated with the main results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is a secondary analysis of published data and, therefore, does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024546340.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.