ReviewJournal of sleep research2026
Investigation of the "Not Better Explained" Diagnosis Criteria in Sleep Disorder Classifications: A Systematic Content Analysis and Critical Review.
Review in Journal of sleep research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate diagnostic boundaries between normal and pathological sleep are essential for appropriate care. Among diagnostic criteria, the "Not Better Explained" (NBE) exclusion criterion prevents misclassification by ensuring that symptoms are not attributable to another disorder. Despite its importance, the NBE criterion has never been systematically analysed across the International Classification of Sleep Disorders-Third Edition Text Revision (ICSD-3-TR) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). A systematic content analysis was conducted using a validated methodology for diagnostic criteria evaluation. Ten major sleep disorders were selected based on prevalence and clinical relevance. For each disorder in both classifications, NBE formulations were identified, extracted, and categorised by excluded condition and causal wording. The Jaccard index quantified overlap, and visualisations compared exclusion patterns. The ICSD-3-TR included the NBE criterion in 9 of 10 disorders, whereas the DSM-5-TR included it in 7 of 10. Overall overlap was strong (Jaccard index = 0.75). Differences were mainly semantic. The ICSD-3-TR more often excluded "sleep disorders," "substance use," and "sleep behaviours," while the DSM-5-TR emphasised "medical" and "mental disorders." The ICSD-3-TR predominantly used "not better explained," whereas the DSM-5-TR employed more variable formulations ("not attributable," "not adequately explained"…). By highlighting the strengths and inconsistencies in the use of the NBE criterion, we aim to contribute to a more empirically and conceptually grounded framework for sleep disorder diagnosis. Our work aims to inform ongoing efforts to improve the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of diagnostic classifications in sleep medicine.
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.