Skip to main content
SleepCited

The efficacy of melatonin and melatonin agonists in insomnia - An umbrella review.

Tian Ling Low, Faith Nadine Choo, Shian Ming Tan
Systematic Review Journal of psychiatric research 2020 52 citazioni
PubMed DOI
<\/script>\n
`; }, get iframeSnippet() { const domain = 'sleepcited.com'; const params = 'pmid\u003D31715492'; return ``; }, get activeSnippet() { return this.method === 'script' ? this.scriptSnippet : this.iframeSnippet; }, copySnippet() { navigator.clipboard.writeText(this.activeSnippet).then(() => { this.copied = true; setTimeout(() => { this.copied = false; }, 2000); }); } }" @keydown.escape.window="open = false" @click.outside="open = false">

Embed This Widget

Style



      
      
    

Widget powered by . Free, no account required.

Study Design

Tipo di studio
Systematic Review
Popolazione
Insomnia patients
Intervento
The efficacy of melatonin and melatonin agonists in insomnia - An umbrella review. None
Comparatore
None
Esito primario
None
Direzione dell'effetto
Positive
Rischio di bias
Unclear

Abstract

We conducted an umbrella review to summarize all available systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the efficacy of melatonin and melatonin agonists in primary and comorbid insomnia disorders. Two independent reviewers conducted a search of Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, PROSPERO and grey literature from inception to July 2018. Methodological quality was assessed using the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Instrument. Eighteen studies were found, with methodological quality ranging from Moderate to Critically Low. Of the twelve papers evaluating melatonin, there is statistically significant improvement in sleep latency and total sleep time, with a lack of consensus on whether these are clinically meaningful. Similar results are observed across the three reviews on ramelteon. The evidence for other melatonin agonists is sparse. We conclude that existing evidence is limited by disparate methodological quality of the papers, as well as a lack of consensus regarding the type, definition and interpretation of outcome measures in the evaluation of efficacy for insomnia.

TL;DR

It is concluded that existing evidence is limited by disparate methodological quality of the papers, as well as a lack of consensus regarding the type, definition and interpretation of outcome measures in the evaluation of efficacy for insomnia.

Used In Evidence Reviews

Similar Papers