This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at treatments for sleep problems in people with multiple sclerosis. The researchers combined data from ten different studies, with five eligible for detailed statistical analysis. The group included people with multiple sclerosis who received various interventions. These treatments involved physical activity, mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, melatonin, eszopiclone, and transcranial direct current stimulation. The study tracked sleep outcomes like total sleep time and sleep efficiency using activity monitors. The review followed participants for an average of 3.7 months. Results showed that sleep efficiency improved following mindfulness interventions. No adverse events were reported in the included studies. However, the small number of studies limits definitive conclusions about these treatments. Future trials should consider a wider range of outcome measures and longer time horizons to better understand long-term effects. Readers should view these findings as preliminary until larger studies confirm the results.
Sleep efficiency improved with mindfulness in multiple sclerosis patients according to a meta-analysisMindfulness and Melatonin May Help Sleep in Multiple Sclerosis
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined various interventions for sleep disturbances in people with multiple sclerosis. The review included ten studies for narrative synthesis, with five eligible for quantitative meta-analysis. Interventions assessed included physical activity, mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, melatonin, eszopiclone, and transcranial direct current stimulation. Sleep outcomes were measured using activity monitors to track total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and other metrics.
The analysis found that sleep efficiency improved following mindfulness interventions. Other interventions yielded less consistent qualitative results. The authors observed that the safety profile was favorable as adverse events were not reported in the included studies. However, the review highlighted that the small number of included studies limits definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of these approaches.
The authors note that future trials should consider a wider range of outcome measures and longer time horizons to better understand the long-term impact of these interventions. Given the limitations of the current evidence base, clinicians should interpret findings with caution and avoid overstating the benefits of any single intervention for this population.