The past,present, and future of sleep measurement in mild cognitive impairment and early dementia—towards a core outcome set: a scoping review |
| |
| Authors: | Jonathan Blackman Hamish Duncan Morrison Katherine Lloyd Amy Gimson Luke Vikram Banerjee Sebastian Green Rebecca Cousins Sarah Rudd Sam Harding Elizabeth Coulthard |
| |
| Affiliation: | Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK;Bristol Brain Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK;Library and Knowledge Service, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK;Research and Innovation, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Study ObjectivesSleep abnormalities emerge early in dementia and may accelerate cognitive decline. Their accurate characterization may facilitate earlier clinical identification of dementia and allow for assessment of sleep intervention efficacy. This scoping review determines how sleep is currently measured and reported in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and early dementia, as a basis for future core outcome alignment.MethodsThis review follows the PRISMA Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Psychinfo, and British Nursing Index databases were searched from inception—March 12, 2021. Included studies had participants diagnosed with MCI and early dementia and reported on sleep as a key objective/ outcome measure.ResultsNineteen thousand five hundred and ninety-six titles were returned following duplicate removal with 188 studies [N] included in final analysis. Sleep data was reported on 17 139 unique, diagnostically diverse participants (n). “Unspecified MCI” was the most common diagnosis amongst patients with MCI (n = 5003, 60.6%). Despite technological advances, sleep was measured most commonly by validated questionnaires (n = 12 586, N = 131). Fewer participants underwent polysomnography (PSG) (n = 3492, N = 88) and actigraphy (n = 3359, N = 38) with little adoption of non-PSG electroencephalograms (EEG) (n = 74, N = 3). Sleep outcome parameters were reported heterogeneously. 62/165 (37.6%) were described only once in the literature (33/60 (60%) in interventional studies). There was underrepresentation of circadian (n = 725, N = 25) and micro-architectural (n = 360, N = 12) sleep parameters.ConclusionsAlongside under-researched areas, there is a need for more detailed diagnostic characterization. Due to outcome heterogeneity, we advocate for international consensus on core sleep outcome parameters to support causal inference and comparison of therapeutic sleep interventions. |
| |
| Keywords: | sleep, Alzheimer’ s disease, mild cognitive impairment, MCI, AD |
|
|
