Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 10;19(4):e0297941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297941

Development of insomnia in patients with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Junwei Yang 1,‡,*,#, Aitao Lin 2,, Qingjing Tan 1,, Weihua Dou 1, Jinyu Wu 1, Yang Zhang 1, Haohai Lin 1, Baoping Wei 1, Jiemin Huang 1, Juanjuan Xie 1,*,#
Editor: Tanja Grubić Kezele3
PMCID: PMC11006172  PMID: 38598535

Abstract

Background and aim

Stroke is a serious threat to human life and health, and post-stroke insomnia is one of the common complications severely impairing patients’ quality of life and delaying recovery. Early understanding of the relationship between stroke and post-stroke insomnia can provide clinical evidence for preventing and treating post-stroke insomnia. This study was to investigate the prevalence of insomnia in patients with stroke.

Methods

The Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were used to obtain the eligible studies until June 2023. The quality assessment was performed to extract valid data for meta-analysis.

The prevalence rates were used a random-efect. I2 statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity of the studies.

Results

  1. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, with 1,193,659 participants, of which 497,124 were patients with stroke.

  2. The meta-analysis indicated that 150,181 patients with stroke developed insomnia during follow-up [46.98%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 36.91–57.18] and 1806 patients with ischemic stroke (IS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) developed insomnia (47.21%, 95% CI: 34.26–60.36). Notably, 41.51% of patients with the prevalence of nonclassified stroke developed insomnia (95% CI: 28.86–54.75). The incidence of insomnia was significantly higher in patients with acute strokes than in patients with nonacute strokes (59.16% vs 44.07%, P < 0.0001).

  3. Similarly, the incidence of insomnia was significantly higher in the patients with stroke at a mean age of ≥65 than patients with stroke at a mean age of <65 years (47.18% vs 40.50%, P < 0.05). Fifteen studies reported the follow-up time. The incidence of insomnia was significantly higher in the follow-up for ≥3 years than follow-up for <3 years (58.06% vs 43.83%, P < 0.05). Twenty-one studies used the Insomnia Assessment Diagnostic Tool, and the rate of insomnia in patients with stroke was 49.31% (95% CI: 38.59–60.06). Five studies used self-reporting, that the rate of insomnia in patients with stroke was 37.58% (95% CI: 13.44–65.63).

Conclusions

Stroke may be a predisposing factor for insomnia. Insomnia is more likely to occur in acute-phase stroke, and the prevalence of insomnia increases with patient age and follow-up time. Further, the rate of insomnia is higher in patients with stroke who use the Insomnia Assessment Diagnostic Tool.

1 Introduction

Stroke is the second most morbid and deadly disease globally, which is characterized by high morbidity, disability, mortality, and recurrence. It substantially threatens human life, health, and quality of life [1,2]. Previous study revealed that neuropsychiatric disorders frequently affect stroke survivors, such as insomnia, depression, or anxiety and so on [3]. Similarly, One third of stroke patients met the diagnostic criteria of insomnia, and patients may experience difficulty falling asleep, difficulty with sleep persistence, and early awakening [4].

Insomnia is the most common sleep disorder prevalent in people of all ages. In severe cases, it can affect daytime work and life, and even cause emotional disorders [5]. The incidence of insomnia increases with the increase in social pressure [6]. Study showed that the incidence of insomnia in stroke patients is higher than the normal healthy population, and some patients with insomnia may be more prone to stroke risk [7]. As increasing studies showed that insomnia has a bidirectional relationship with stroke, which may be an independent risk factor for stroke. Further, stroke may also be a predisposing factor for insomnia [8]. Therefore, it is essential to understand the relationship between stroke and post-stroke insomnia in an early stage to provide a clinical basis for the early prevention and treatment of post-stroke insomnia. The study aimed to investigate the prevalence of insomnia in patients with stroke.

2 Research design and method

The study was conducted and designed in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [9,10].

2.1 Data source and selection process

Literature related to the occurrence of developmental insomnia in stroke patients was collected through PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases until June 2023.

2.2 Search strategy

We searched the related literature by the subject terms, such as “Stroke”, “Cerebrovascular Accident”, “Insomnia”, “Insomnia Disorder”, etc. The following search strategy for the PubMed database (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Search strategy of PubMed.

Fig 1

2.3 Eligibility criteria and study selection

In the study, we included the cohort studies and cross-sectional studies about stroke patients who developed insomnia in English language. Stroke patients met the diagnostic criteria of the Essentials of Diagnosis of Various Cerebrovascular Diseases [11]. Insomnia patients were diagnosed through recognized assessment tools such as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hamilton Depression Scale (HDS), or self-reported symptoms of insomnia and met the diagnostic criteria of the American Academy of Sleep in 2014 [12]. We excluded the duplicate records, case reports, reviews and so on.

2.4 Exclusion criteria

We excluded the duplicate literature, case reports, reviews and the the literature with incomplete data indicators, or the information was not available.

2.5 Data extraction

2.5.1 Literature screening and information extraction

LAT and TQJ screened the included literatures. The extracted information mainly included the basic information of the literatures: first author name, the time of publication, sample size, the country, the follow-up time and the number of positive cases. In case of disagreement between two researchers in the literature screening or data extraction process, the decision was submitted to the third researcher (YJW).

2.5.2 Literature quality assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies [13,14]. Any disagreements by the researchers were submitted to a third researcher (YJW).

2.6 Statistical analysis

In the study, we used systematic Meta-Analysis software version 3 to calculate the statistical analyse [15]. The fixed effects model was used in P≥0.10 and I2≤50%, and random-effects model was used in P<0.10 and/or I2>50%, which was necessary to find the source of heterogeneity and perform subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis [1618].

3 Results

3.1 PROSPERO registration

Registration number: CRD42023452419.

3.2 Literature search results

We got 1507 literatures from databases, of which 469 were duplicates and hence excluded. Further, we excluded 927 studies by the exclusion criteria. Overall, 111 studies were retained for the full-text evaluation, and finally 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Fig 2) [7,1943].

Fig 2. Literature screening process and results.

Fig 2

3.4 Basic characteristics of the included studies

The 26 included studies (13 prospective cohort studies, 10 cross-sectional studies, 2 retrospective studies, and 1 multicenter observational study) were published between 2002 and 2023. Overall, the 26 studies included had 1,193,659 participants, of which 497,124 were patients with stroke. The details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Study characteristics.

Study details Sample characteristics (stroke sample)
First author/Date Country Years Total N (%, n of stroke) Design Stroke/n Insomnia/n Followup
period
Mean Age, years (SD) Stroke type Gender % male
Simone B. Duss
et al 2023[19]
Bern 2015.11–2016.7 437 (100%) Prospective cohort study 437 168 2 yrs 65.1 ± 13.0 IS、TIA 63.8%
Won-Hyoung Kim et al 2017[20] Korean 2014.3–2015.12 214 (100%) Cohort study 214 128 1 mo NR IS、Hemorrhagic stroke NR
Hye-Mi Moon et al 2019[21] Korean 2010–2012, 2013 504 (100%) Cross-sectional Population based survey 504 123 NR 64.4 ± 0.7 stroke 55.7%
A. Leppävuori et al 2002[7] NR NR 277 (100%) Cross-sectional interview 277 157 3 mo 70.7 ± 7.5 IS 50.9%
Ruo-lin Zhu et al 2022[22] China 2020.1–2021.5 94 (100%) Cross-sectional survey 94 59 16 mo NR IS 70.2%
A. Katharina Helbig et al 2015[23] Germany NR 15746 (5.8%, n = 917) Cross-sectional survey 917 769 14 yrs (md) NR stroke 62.16%
Azizi A Seixas et al 2019[24] USA 2000–2015 1108043 (43.9%, n = 486619) Cross-sectional Population based survey 486619 145207 NR 47.5 ± 14.15 stroke 47.3%
Biljana Kojic et al 2021[25] Tuzla NR 110 (100%) Prospective study 100 100 NR 65.13 ± 9.27 Stroke 59%
Chien-Yi Hsu et al 2015[26] Taiwan,China NR 44080 (2.38%, n = 1049) Cross-sectional cohort 1049 743 10 yrs NR Stroke NR
Faizul Hasan et al 2023[27] Taiwan,China 2004.1–2017.9 1775 (100%) Retrospective Cohort Study 1775 146 NR 67.6 ± 14.91 Stroke 58.6%
Gul M C et al 2016[28] Turkey NR 81 (100%) Retrospective study 81 30 5 yrs 66.5 ± 10.3 IS 50.6%
Hui-Ju Tsai et al 2022[29] Taiwan,China 2020.7–2021.10 195 (100%) Prospective study 195 58 15 mo 64.1 ± 8.9 IS 59.5%
Ipek Sonmez et al 2019[30] Famagusta 2016.1–2017.2 55 (100%) Cross-sectional observational study 55 32 NR 69 ± 11 Stroke NR
Jinil Kim et al 2015[31] China 2013.10–2014.6 80 (100%) Prospective study 80 57 NR 63.8 ± 13.6 IS、Hemorrhagic stroke 67.5%
Keun T K et al.2017[32] Korean NR 241 (100%) Prospective study 241 108 NR 64.2 ± 11.9 AIS 60.6%
Kyung-Lim Joa et al 2017[33] Korean NR 208 (100%) Multicenter-observational and correlation study 208 56 NR 61.53 ± 12.58 Stroke 54%
Li-Jun Li et al 2018[34] China 2008.4–2010.4 1062 (100%) Prospective Cohort Study 1062 489 6 yrs 60.47 ± 11.57 Stroke 65.7%
M. Sieminski et al 2009[35] Poland 1995–2005 90 (100%) Prospective study 90 65 NR 66.5 ± 12.8 IS 46.7%
Mayura T I et al 2019[36] Australia 2016.8–2018.1 104 (100%) prospective cohort study 104 31 17 mo 76 ± 7 Stroke 52.9%
Min-Y K et al 2018[37] Korean 2010–2014 17601 (2%, n = 360) Cross-sectional survey study 360 170 4 yrs NR Stroke NR
Nick Glozier et al 2017[38] Australia 2008–2010 368 (100%) Prospective cohort study 368 124 1 year NR IS、Hemorrhagic stroke 68.2%
Wai-Kwong Tang et al 2015[39] Hong Kong, China 2008.6–2011.9 336 (100%) Cross-sectional survey study 336 149 3 mo 66.1 ± 10.2 Acute stroke 60.4%
Won-Hyoung Kim et al 2019[40] Korean 2016.7–2018.8 112 (100%) Cohort study 112 40 NR NR Stroke 54.5%
Xiao-Wei Fan et al 2022[41] China 2015.8–2018.3 1619 (100%) Prospective study 1619 1137 3 mo 60.8 ± 10.7 AIS or TIA 72.5%
Yitao He et al 2019[42] China 2016.1–2018.6 152 (100%) Prospective study 152 24 3 mo 65.25 ± 13.56 AIS 67.76%
Alia H. Mansour et al 2020[43] Egypt 2015.1–2015.12 75 (100%) Cross-sectional prospective study 75 11 NR 59.3 ± 5.34 Stroke 45.3%

3.5 Quality of included studies

Table 2 shows the quality assessment of the included studies. 69.23% (eighteen studies) studies determined the prevalence of insomnia in stroke patients in a sufficient sample size. To assess insomnia, most studies used standardized instruments or validated diagnostic criteria (80.77%). The details are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Quality of included studies.

Study Response
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
Simone B. Duss
et al 2023[19]
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Won-Hyoung Kim
et al 2017[20]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Hye-Mi Moon
et al 2019[21]
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
A. Leppävuori
et al 2002[7]
Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ruo-lin Zhu
et al 2022[22]
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
K.H.
et al 2015[23]
Y Y Y Y Y U U Y Y Y
Azizi A Seixas
et al 2019[24]
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
Biljana Kojic
et al 2021[25]
Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Chien-Yi Hsu
et al 2015[26]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Faizul Hasan
et al 2023[27]
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
Gul M C
et al 2016[28]
Y U N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Hui-Ju Tsai
et al 2022[29]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ipek Sonmez
et al 2019[30]
Y Y Y Y Y Y U Y Y Y
Jinil Kim
et al 2015[31]
Y Y N Y Y Y U Y Y Y
Keun T K
et al.2017[32]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Kyung-Lim Joa
et al 2017[33]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Li-Jun Li
et al 2018[34]
Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
M. Sieminski
et al 2009[35]
Y U N U Y Y Y Y Y Y
Mayura T I
et al 2019[36]
Y U N Y Y Y U Y Y Y
Min-Y K
et al 2018[37]
Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y
Nick Glozier
et al 2017[38]
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Wai-Kwong Tang
et al 2015[39]
Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Won-Hyoung Kim
et al 2019[40]
Y U N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Xiao-Wei Fan
et al 2022[41]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Yitao He
et al 2019[42]
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alia H. Mansour et al 2020[43] Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Keys

Q1-Q10 represents questions used to assess the quality of included studies, which are listed below.

Q1. Sample frame appropriate to address the target population.

Q2. Appropriate sampling of study participants.

Q3. Adequate sample size.

Q4. Study subjects and setting described in detail.

Q5. Data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample.

Q6. Valid methods used for the identification of insomnia or insomnia symptoms.

Q7. Valid methods used for the identification of stroke.

Q8. Condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants.

Q9. Appropriate statistical analysis.

Q10. Adequate response rate, if not, was low response rate managed appropriately.

3.6 Meta-analysis

We used the random-effects model to pool prevalence of insomnia in patients with stroke. 150,181 patients with stroke developed insomnia during the follow-up and the pool prevalence was 46.98% (95% CI: 36.91–57.18) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among stroke patients.

Fig 3

Moreover, nine studies examined the occurrence of insomnia in patients with IS or TIA. The result showed that the prevalence of insomnia among patients with IS or TIA was 47.21% (95% CI: 34.26–60.36) (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among IS or TIA patients.

Fig 4

Four studies explicitly examined the prevalence of insomnia among IS or hemorrhage patients and the prevalence was 44.09% (95% CI: 19.84–69.92), while twelve studies did not specify the type of stroke (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among nonclassified stroke patients.

Fig 5

Five studies explored the odds of insomnia in patients with acute stroke, and the prevalence was 59.16% (95% CI: 24.18–89.55) (Fig 6). Meanwhile, the odds of insomnia in patients with nonacute stroke was 44.07% in twenty-one studies (95% CI: 34.74–53.61) (Fig 7).

Fig 6. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among acute stroke stroke patients.

Fig 6

Fig 7. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among non-acute stroke patients.

Fig 7

In the subgroup analysis, we found that the incidence of insomnia was significantly higher in the patients with stroke at a mean age of ≥65 than patients with stroke at a mean age of <65 years, which was [47.18% (95% CI: 26.7–68.16) vs 40.50% (95% CI: 26.21–55.66), P<0.05] (Figs 8 and 9).

Fig 8. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia in patients of mean age ≥65 years with stroke patients.

Fig 8

Fig 9. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia in patients of mean age <65 years with stroke patients.

Fig 9

Moreover, concerning the follow-up duration of the participants, we found that the prevalence of insomnia was significantly higher in the follow-up duration was ≥3 years than those with a follow-up period <3 years (58.06% vs 43.83%, P < 0.001) (Figs 10 and 11).

Fig 10. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among patients with stroke with follow-up for ≥ 3years.

Fig 10

Fig 11. Forest plot of the meta-analysis of prevalence of insomnia among patients with stroke with follow-up for < 3years.

Fig 11

In the end, the subgroup analyse was performed based on the use of insomnia assessment diagnostic tools (clinical assessment diagnostic tools vs self-report). Twenty-one studies used insomnia assessment diagnostic tools, and the insomnia rate in stroke patients was 49.31% (95% CI: 38.59–60.06) (Fig 12). Five studies used self-report, and the results indicated that the insomnia rate in stroke patients was 37.58% (95% CI: 13.44–65.63) (Fig 13).

Fig 12. Forest plot of the subgroup analysis with assessment tool.

Fig 12

Fig 13. Forest plot of the subgroup analysis without assessment tool.

Fig 13

4 Discussion

4.1 Key findings

This study was an updated review about the prevalence of insomnia among patients with stroke. Further, 26 studies from 11 countries were included, of which 15 studies were conducted in Asia (57.69%) and the remaining studies were conducted outside Asia. Of the 26 included studies, 21 used diagnostic tools and 5 used nondiagnostic tools for assessing insomnia.

Overall, our meta-analysis indicated that the rate of insomnia after stroke was 48.37%. It was estimated that incidence of IS or TIA (47.21%) was higher than that of unclassified stroke (41.51%); the rate of acute-phase stroke was higher (59.16%) than that of nonacute-phase stroke (36.31%); the proportion of patients with a mean age ≥65 years was higher (47.18%) than the proportion of those with a mean age <65 years (44.43%); the duration of follow-up ≥3 years (58.06%) was higher than the duration of follow-up <3 years (43.83%); and the rate of using a diagnostic tool for insomnia assessment was higher (51.16%) than the rate of using a nondiagnostic tool (37.58%). This suggested that post-stroke insomnia was a substantial global public health problem in patients with stroke who needed urgent attention for prevention and treatment.

4.2 Comparisons of the study findings with the available evidence

Our study found that the rate of insomnia after stroke (48.37%) was 1.27 times higher compared with the prevalence in the meta-analysis by Baylan et al. in 2019 (38.2%) [44]. It indicated that the prevalence of post-stroke insomnia continued to increase yearly, and insomnia had a significant negative impact on patients. The data in this study indicated that sleep-related apnea was significantly associated with stroke, and obstructive apnea syndrome might increase the risk of stroke twice [1]. A 4-year follow-up study in Taiwan, China revealed that compared with patients without insomnia, the incidence of stroke was significantly higher in insomnia patients [45]. A similar meta-analysis showed that sleep duration was also associated with the risk of stroke, with a 5%–7% increase in stroke risk for every 1-h decrease in short sleep duration (RR = 1.05–1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.12) [46,47].

Insomnia after stroke is associated with the acute or chronic phase of stroke. In this study, we found that the rate of insomnia was higher in the acute phase of stroke (59.16%) than in the nonacute phase of stroke (36.31%). Luisa et al. found that polysomnography in acute IS patients showed poorer sleep quality was associated with sleep efficiency, sleep-onset awakening time in stroke patients [48]. Several factors usually caused insomnia in patients with stroke. Insomnia in patients with acute stroke was found to be associated with an increased risk of post-stroke psychiatric disorders [49].

Moreover, the age of patients with stroke and the duration of follow-up are also important factors influencing the rate of insomnia in patients with stroke. In the general population, insomnia may increase with age [50]. Studies showed a significantly higher prevalence of insomnia in elderly people [51]. Nick Glozier et al. found that the prevalence of insomnia was 16% after 6 months of stroke and 23% after 12 months of stroke [38]. The aforementioned study suggested that older patients with stroke might have an increased likelihood of experiencing insomnia during the follow-up period, and this likelihood seems to grow over time.

Insomnia assessment and diagnostic tool is also one of the factors affecting the rate of insomnia. This study found that the prevalence of insomnia using the Insomnia Assessment Diagnostic Tool was 51.16%, which was higher than the prevalence of self-reported insomnia (37.58%). In contrast, in study using the insomnia assessment and diagnostic tool, the prevalence of insomnia was different in acute phase and subacute phase stroke (32.5% vs 34.8%), whereas the overall prevalence of self-assessed insomnia also was different in acute phase and subacute phase stroke (47.1% vs 50.4%) [52]. Further large-sample studies are needed to validate these findings.

This study had some limitations. First, the study quality was not an exclusion criterion, which might have contributed to the differences in the prevalence of insomnia after stroke. Studies used different tools for assessing and diagnosing insomnia, which might also have led to biased conclusions. Second, we did not study the treatment of patients with stroke and its effect on the development of insomnia.

5 Conclusions

Stroke may be a predisposing factor for insomnia. Insomnia is more likely to occur in acute-phase stroke, and the prevalence of insomnia increases with patient age and follow-up. Further, the rate of insomnia is higher in patients with stroke who use the Insomnia Assessment Diagnostic Tool.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0297941.s001.docx (818.4KB, docx)
S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0297941.s002.xlsx (21.3KB, xlsx)
S1 File

(PDF)

pone.0297941.s003.pdf (110.9KB, pdf)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Administration of Traditional Chinese medicine in guangxi, self-financing scientific research subject[grant numbers GXZYA20220072]; Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi[grant numbers 2023GXNSFAA026200]; Hospital scientific research project of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine[grant numbers 2021QN008]; Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine research project[grant numbers 2022QN019]. This work was supported by Junwei YANG and Qingjing TAN.

References

  • 1.Geoffrey A Donnan, Marc Fisher, Macleod Malcolm, Stephen M Davis. Stroke[J].Lancet.2008,371(9624):1612–23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60694-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. The Top 10 Causes of Death. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causesof-death (accessed on 30 January 2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baylan S.; Griffiths S.; Grant N.; Broomfield N.M.; Evans J.J.; Gardani M. Incidence and prevalence of post-stroke insomnia:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Sleep Med. Rev. 2020, 49, 101222. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Baylan Satu, Griffiths Susan, Grant Nicola, Niall M Broomfield, Jonathan J Evans, Maria Gardani. Incidence and prevalence of post-stroke insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101222. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International classification of Sleep disorders[M]. 3rd ed. Darien, IL:American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pallesen Ståle, Sivertsen Børge, Inger Hilde Nordhus, Bjørn Bjorvatn. A 10-year trend of insomnia prevalence in the adult Norwegian population[J]. Sleep Med. 2014;15(2):173–9. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2013.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Leppävuori T A. Pohjasvaara R. Vataja M. Kaste T. Erkinjuntti. Insomnia in Ischemic Stroke Patients[J]. Cerebrovasc Dis 2002;14:90–97. doi: 10.1159/000064737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gottlieb Elie, Landau Elizabeth, Baxter Helen, Werden Emilio, Mark E Howard, Amy Brodtmann. The bidirectional impact of sleep and circadian rhythm dysfunction in human ischaemic stroke: A systematic review[J]. Sleep Med Rev. 2019; 45:54–69. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2019.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Group P–P, Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lin Aitao, Tan Yongyi, Chen Jinxia, Liu Xiaoyu, Wu Jinyu. Development of ankylosing spondylitis in patients with ulcerative colitis: A systematic meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One. 2023;18(8):e0289021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chinese Neurological Association, Chinese Neurosurgical Association, Diagnostic points of various cerebrovascular diseases (1995)[J]. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 2013, 7(12):559. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International classification of Sleep disorders[M]. 3rd ed. Darien, IL: American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Munn Zachary, Moola Sandeep, Riitano Dagmara, Lisy Karolina. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence[J]. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014; 3(3):123–8. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Munn Zachary, Moola Sandeep, Lisy Karolina, Riitano Dagmara, Tufanaru Catalin. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data[J]. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):147–53. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wells G, Shea B, O’connell D et al. (2000) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in metaanalyses. Eur JEpidemiol 25(9):603–605. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive metaanalysis version 2. Englewood: Biostat; 2005. p. 104. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson, Jonathan J Deeks, Douglas G Altman. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Borenstein Michael, Larry V Hedges, Julian P T Higgins, Hannah R Rothstein. A basic introduction to fxed-efect and random-efects models for meta-analysis. Res synth methods. 2010;1(2):97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Simone B Duss, Stefan A Bauer-Gambelli, Corrado Bernasconi, et al. Frequency and evolution of sleep-wake disturbances after ischemic stroke: A 2-year prospective study of 437 patients[J]. Sleep Med. 2023;101:244–251. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2022.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kim Won-Hyoung, Jung Han-Young, Choi Ha-Yoon, Park Chan-Hyuk, Kim Eun-Suk, Lee Sook-Joung, et al. The associations between insomnia and health-related quality of life in rehabilitation units at 1month after stroke[J]. J Psychosom Res. 2017;96:10–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Moon Hye-Mi, Kim Yoonjung. Mental health according to sleep duration in stroke survivors: A population-based nationwide cross-sectional study[J]. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020;20(3):223–228. doi: 10.1111/ggi.13846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhu Ruo-Lin, Ouyang Chao, Ma Ruo-Lin, Wang Kai. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with cognitive impairment in minor ischemic stroke[J]. Sleep Breath. 2022;26(4):1907–1914. doi: 10.1007/s11325-022-02575-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.A Katharina Helbig Doris Stöckl, Heier Margit, Ladwig Karl-Heinz, Meisinger Christa. Symptoms of Insomnia and Sleep Duration and Their Association with Incident Strokes: Findings from the Population-Based MONICA/KORA Augsburg Cohort Study[J]. PLoS One. 2015. 31;10(7):e0134480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Azizi A Seixas, Debbie P Chung, Shannique L Richards, Madhavaram Shreya, Preeti Raghavan, Juan Gago, et al. The impact of short and long sleep duration on instrumental activities of daily living among stroke survivors[J]. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019;15:177–182. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S177527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Biljana Kojic, Zikrija Dostovic, Omer C Ibrahimagic, Dzevdet Smajlovic, Renata Hodzic, Amra Iljazovic, et al. Risk Factors in Acute Stroke Patients With and Without Sleep Apnea[J]. Med Arch. 2021;75(6):444–450. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hsu Chien-Yi, Chen Yung-Tai, Chen Mu-Hong, Huang Chin-Chou, et al. The Association Between Insomnia and Increased Future Cardiovascular Events: A Nationwide Population-Based Study[J]. Psychosom Med. 2015;77(7):743–51. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Faizul Hasan, Muhtar M S, Dean Wu, Hsin-Chien Lee Yen-Chun Fan, Ting-Jhen Chen, et al. Post-Stroke Insomnia Increased the Risk of Cognitive Impairments: A Hospital-Based Retrospective Cohort Study[J]. Behav Sleep Med. 2023;1–9. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2023.2165491 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gul Mete Civelek, Ayce Atalay, Turhan Nur. Medical complications experienced by first-time ischemic stroke patients during inpatient, tertiary level stroke rehabilitation[J]. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(2):382–91. doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tsai Hui-Ju, Wong Yi-Sin, Ong Cheung-Ter. Hui-Ju Tsai 1, Yi-Sin Wong 2, Cheung-Ter Ong[J]. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sonmez Ipek, Karasel Seide. Poor Sleep Quality I Related to Impaired Functional Status Following Stroke[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;28(11):104349. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kim Jinil, Kim Yuntae, Kwang Ik Yang Doh-Eui Kim, Soo A Kim. The Relationship Between Sleep Disturbance and Functional Status in Mild Stroke Patients[J]. Ann Rehabil Med. 2015;39(4):545–52. doi: 10.5535/arm.2015.39.4.545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kim Keun Tae, Moon Hye-Jin, Yang Jun-Gyu, Sohn Sung-Ii, Hong Jeong-Ho, Cho Yong Won. The prevalence and clinical significance of sleep disorders in acute ischemic stroke patients-a questionnaire study[J]. Sleep Breath. 2017;21(3):759–765. doi: 10.1007/s11325-016-1454-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Joa Kyung-Lim, Kim Won-Hyoung, Choi Ha-Yoon, Park Chan-Hyuk, Kim Eun-Suk, Lee Sook-Joung, et al. The Effect of Sleep Disturbances on the Functional Recovery of Rehabilitation Inpatients Following Mild and Moderate Stroke[J]. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(10):734–740. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Li Li-Jun, Yang Yang, Guan Bo-Yuan, Chen Qi, Wang An-Xin, Wang Yong-Jun, et al. Insomnia is associated with increased mortality in patients with first-ever stroke: a 6-year follow-up in a Chinese cohort study[J]. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2018;3(4):197–202. doi: 10.1136/svn-2017-000136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sieminski M., Chwojnicki K., Ossowska A., Wierucki L.,Zdrojewski T., Wyrzykowski B., et al. Impact of insomnia on the quality of life of post-stroke patients[J]. 19th World Congress of Neurology, Free Paper Abstracts / Journal of the Neurological Sciences 285 S1 (2009) S57–S154. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mayura T Iddagoda, Charles A Inderjeeth, Kien Chan, Warren D Raymond. Post-stroke sleep disturbances and rehabilitation outcomes: a prospective cohort study[J]. Intern Med J. 2020;50(2):208–213. doi: 10.1111/imj.14372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kim Min-Young, Lee Seunghoon, You Ho Myong Yoon Jae Lee, Kim Me-Riong, Shin Joon-Shik, et al. Association between sleep duration and stroke prevalence in Korean adults: a cross-sectional study[J]. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e021491. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Glozier Nick, Tom J Moullaali Børge Sivertsen, Kim Dukyeon, Mead Gillian, Jan Stephen, et al. The Course and Impact of Poststroke Insomnia in Stroke Survivors Aged 18 to 65 Years: Results from the Psychosocial Outcomes In StrokE (POISE) Study[J]. Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2017;7(1):9–20. doi: 10.1159/000455751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tang Wai-Kwong, Lau Chieh Grace, Mok Vincent, Ungvari Gabor S, Wong Ka-Sing. Insomnia and health-related quality of life in stroke[J]. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015;22(3):201–7. doi: 10.1179/1074935714Z.0000000026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim Won-Hyoung, Yoo Young-Hwan, Lim Ju-Young, Kang Sang-Gu, Jung Han-Young, Bae Jae Nam, et al. Objective and subjective sleep problems and quality of life of rehabilitation in patients with mild to moderate stroke[J]. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(3):199–207. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2019.1673591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fan Xiao-Wei, Yang Yang, Wang Shuo, Zhang Yi-Jun, Wang An-Xin, Liao Xiao-Ling, et al. Impact of Persistent Poor Sleep Quality on Post-Stroke Anxiety and Depression: A National Prospective Clinical Registry Study[J]. Nat Sci Sleep. 2022;14:1125–1135. doi: 10.2147/NSS.S357536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.He Yitao, Gu Mei, Zhang Hui, Deng Jian, Wu Xiaoyun, Guo Yi. Effect of insomnia after acute ischemic stroke on cerebrovascular reactivity: a prospective clinical study in China[J]. Sleep Med. 2019;63:82–87. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mansour Alia H., Ayad Maged, Naglaa El-Khayat, Ahmed El Sadekand Alloush Taha K. Post-stroke sleep disorders in Egyptian patients by using simply administered questionnaires: a study from Ain Shams University[J]. The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, (2020) 56:13. doi: 10.1186/s41983-020-0148-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Baylan Satu, Griffiths Susan, Grant Nicola, Niall M Broomfield, Jonathan J Evans, Maria Gardani. Incidence and prevalence of post-stroke insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;49:101222. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wu Ming-Ping, Lin Huey-Juan, Weng Shih-Feng, Ho Chung-Han, Wang Jhi-Joung, Hsu Ya-Wen. Insomnia subtypes and the subsequent risks of stroke: report from a nationally representative cohort[J]. Stroke. 2014;45(5):1349–54. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Simone B Duss Anne-Kathrin Brill, Bargiotas Panagiotis, Facchin Laura, Alexiev Filip, Manconi Mauro, et al. Sleep-Wake Disorders in Stroke-Increased Stroke Risk and Deteriorated Recovery? An Evaluation on the Necessity for Prevention and Treatment[J]. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2018;18(10):72. doi: 10.1007/s11910-018-0879-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li Wenzhen, Wang Dongming, Cao Shiyi, Yin Xiaoxv, Gong Yanhong, Gan Yong, et al. Sleep duration and risk of stroke events and stroke mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies[J]. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223:870–876. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Luisa de Vivo, Michele Bellesi, Marshall William, Eric A Bushong, Mark H Ellisman, Giulio Tononi, et al. Ultrastructural evidence for synaptic scaling across the wake/sleep cycle[J]. Science. 2017;355(6324):507–510. doi: 10.1126/science.aah5982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nakamizo Tomoki, Kanda Toshie, Kudo Yosuke, Sugawara Eriko, Hashimoto Erina, Okazaki Ayana, et al. Effects of uncomfortable care and histamine H2-antagonists on delirium in acute stroke: A propensity score analysis[J]. J Neurol Sci. 2021;420:117251. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2020.117251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Leino Akseli, Susanna Westeren-Punnonen Juha Töyräs, et al. Acute stroke and TIA patients have specific polygraphic features of obstructive sleep apnea[J]. Sleep Breath. 2020;24(4):1495–1505. doi: 10.1007/s11325-019-02010-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Benbir Gulcin, Ahmet Ugur Demir, Murat Aksu, Ardic Sadik, Firat Hikmet, Itil Oya, et al. Prevalence of insomnia and its clinical correlates in a general population in Turkey[J]. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015;69(9):543–52. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rollo Eleonora, Brunetti Valerio, Scala Irene, Callea Antonio, Marotta Jessica, Vollono Catello, et al. Impact of delirium on the outcome of stroke: a prospective, observational, cohort study[J]. J Neurol. 2022;269(12):6467–6475. doi: 10.1007/s00415-022-11309-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tanja Grubić Kezele

3 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-27856Development of Insomnia in patients with Stroke: A systematic meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Based on the reviewers' suggestions, the paper needs major revision.  The reviewers' comments can be found below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tanja Grubić Kezele, Ph.D., M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

Lin A, Tan Y, Chen J, Liu X, Wu J. Development of ankylosing spondylitis in patients with ulcerative colitis: A systematic meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023 Aug 1;18(8):e0289021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289021. PMID: 37527250; PMCID: PMC10393153.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Dr. Qingjing TAN, Dr. Weihua DOU, Dr. Jinyu WU, Dr. Yang ZHANG, Dr. Haohai LIN, Dr. Baoping WEI, and Dr. Jiemin HUANG.

6. Please clarify all figures in your manuscript and separate supporting information tables file.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting topic. Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. I hope you find my comments helpful.

Title

The PRISMA guideline recommends that the title include systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

What do you mean by year of establishment?

“A forest plot was used to determine the prevalence of insomnia among patients with stroke.” A forest plot can not determine the prevalence, a forest plot is just a way to illustrate a result.

Could you mention in the abstract, How many people screened the studies and which method was used to conduct the meta-analysis?

“Meanwhile, after follow-up for <3 years, the incidence of insomnia among patients with stroke was 43.83% (95% CI: 32.75–55.22), which was significant.” What does a significant incidence mean? This does not make sense to me.

There was no mention of difference by age in the result section, however, your conclusion mentioned that “the prevalence of insomnia increases with patient age and follow-up time.”

Introduction

This study is a replication or an update of the Baylan et al. study (Incidence and prevalence of post-stroke insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis) and should have discussed it upfront.

Method

Could you provide a complete search strategy? At least for PubMed. It is better than listing a few terms + etc.

Could you please list all inclusion and exclusion criteria?

“In the study, we included the cohort studies and cross-sectional studies about stroke patients who developed insomnia in English language.”

What is the rationale for including cross-sectional studies and not case-control studies for example?

“We excluded the duplicate records, case reports, reviews and so on.” What is so on?

Discussion

“First, the study quality was not an exclusion criterion, which might have contributed to the differences in the prevalence of insomnia after stroke.” What is the rationale for not excluding studies with poor quality?

About 10 studies were identified after the Baylan et al. systematic review and meta-analysis. It will be good to discuss why your study finding is different from Baylan et al. in light of these studies.

Overall:

Insomnia in patients with stroke should be differentiated from post-stroke insomnia.

Likewise, studies using diagnostic assessment tools should be differentiated from studies using non-diagnostic assessment tools.

Reviewer #2: An important research article that discuss the prevalence of insomnia post stroke , with a metanalysis and systematic review. results determined that 48.37% of patients had stroke, with increase percentage among those older than 65 years . However herein some comments to strengthen the authors' argument.

Major flaws ;

1-Authors included some studies in which the included sample patients were not all a stroke patients , and also this was mentioned in the result section of the abstract " Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for

meta-analysis, with 1,193,584 participants, of which 497,049 were

patients with stroke". it is better to determine the prevalence of insomnia among stroke patients only, and not to compare with another population .

2- Polysomnographic based studies were not included entirely and herein an example of a research that was not included " Polysomnographic Characteristics of Sleep in Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chiara Baglioni , Christoph Nissen , Adrian Schweinoch , Dieter Riemann , Kai Spiegelhalder , Mathias Berger ,

Cornelius Weiller , Annette Sterr ( 2016) and was published in PLOS one journal .

3- One polysomnographic study was mentioned , however the polysomnography device specifications and reference values were not mentioned .

4- A study about post stroke sleep disorders from Egypt was not included " Post-stroke sleep disorders in Egyptian patients by using simply administered questionnaires: a study from Ain Shams University.Alia H. Mansour, Maged Ayad, Naglaa El-Khayat, Ahmed El Sadek & Taha K. Alloush . The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery volume 56, Article number: 13 (2020) .

Minor Flaws ;

1- Discussion needs to be more rich and longer .

Regarding references : in some references author's first and last name are written in full , and in others only initials included . Reference 15, and 19 need revision .

Reviewer #3: The authors provide a meta analysis of the association of insomnia and stroke. They find that insomnia is common after stroke. The paper is generally well written. Specific comments follow.

The biggest issue with this paper is that one study dominates the meta analysis. Is it appropriate to do a meta analysis under such circumstances? Aren’t your results just a duplication of the dominant study? You seem to deal with this by the random effects model. Please say more about this and how it is applied to this study.

There is significant heterogeneity in the studies. Again, doesn’t this suggest that a meta analysis is not appropriate?

Your study finds associations which are not necessarily causal. Please change the language throughout the paper to reflect this association.

It’s a bit unusual to include anything other than clinical trials and cohort studies in meta analyses. How do you results change when you exclude the other study types?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Alia H. Mansour

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 10;19(4):e0297941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297941.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Nov 2023

Response Letter

Re: Responses to Editors and Reviewers. Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-27856, submitted to PLOS ONE Journal, “Development of Insomnia in patients with Stroke: A systematic meta-analysis”.

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We appreciate the detailed and constructive comments provided by you. We have carefully revised the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions by the editors and Reviewers panel.

In the manuscript, we have tried our best to improve the writing of all text. We believe that this revised manuscript has addressed your concerns. Thank you for your help. We look forward to hearing from you about further status of our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lin aitao

Reviewer#1:

This is an interesting topic. Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. I hope you find my comments helpful.

Comments 1:

Title

The PRISMA guideline recommends that the title include systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author response 1: Thank you for the comment. We agreed with the reviewer. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript on page 1, lines 1 - 2. Modifications are highlighted with red color.

Comments 2:

Abstract

What do you mean by year of establishment?

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. The year of establishment is about the databases start running which is in order to collecte the literatures related to the occurrence of developmental insomnia in stroke patients. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript on page 2, lines 31-32.

“A forest plot was used to determine the prevalence of insomnia among patients with stroke.” A forest plot can not determine the prevalence, a forest plot is just a way to illustrate a result.

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. We agreed with the reviewer. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript on page 2, lines 31-35.

Could you mention in the abstract, How many people screened the studies and which method was used to conduct the meta-analysis?

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. We showed the results of screened the studies in the abstract, and the methods of the meta-analysis were showed on pages 2, lines 31-38.

“Meanwhile, after follow-up for <3 years, the incidence of insomnia among patients with stroke was 43.83% (95% CI: 32.75–55.22), which was significant.” What does a significant incidence mean? This does not make sense to me.

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript on pages 3, lines 51-53. Modifications are highlighted with red color.

There was no mention of difference by age in the result section, however, your conclusion mentioned that “the prevalence of insomnia increases with patient age and follow-up time.”

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. “Similarly, the incidence of insomnia was significantly higher in the patients with stroke at a mean age of ≥65 than patients with stroke at a mean age of <65 years (47.18% vs 40.50%, P < 0.05).” was mentioned on page 3, lines 48-50.

Comments 3:

Introduction

This study is a replication or an update of the Baylan et al. study (Incidence and prevalence of post-stroke insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis) and should have discussed it upfront.

Author response 3: Thank you for the comment. The study was an update of the incidence of insomnia among patients with stroke. We revealed the incidence of insomnia among stroke patients from the types of stroke, the mean age of stroke patients, and the follow-up time.

Comments 4:

Method

Could you provide a complete search strategy? At least for PubMed. It is better than listing a few terms + etc.

Author response 4: Thank you for the comment. We provided a complete search strategy for the PubMed database which showed in Fig 1.

Could you please list all inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Author response 4: Thank you for the comment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were listed on page 5-6, lines 100-114.

“In the study, we included the cohort studies and cross-sectional studies about stroke patients who developed insomnia in English language.”

What is the rationale for including cross-sectional studies and not case-control studies for example?

Author response 4: Thank you for the comment. The study revealed the occurrence of insomnia during stroke follow-up. We included the cohort studies and cross-sectional studies and not case-control studies, because most of cohort studies and cross-sectional studies were large sample, multi-center, and long follow-up period, while the follow-up period of the case-control study was short.

“We excluded the duplicate records, case reports, reviews and so on.” What is so on?

Author response 4: Thank you for the comment. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript on pages 6, lines 111-114. Modifications are highlighted with red color.

Comments 5:

Discussion

“First, the study quality was not an exclusion criterion, which might have contributed to the differences in the prevalence of insomnia after stroke.” What is the rationale for not excluding studies with poor quality?

Author response 5: Thank you for the comment. In the study, 26 studies from 11 countries were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies, and the details were shown in Table 2 which most of the studies were medium to high quality.

About 10 studies were identified after the Baylan et al. systematic review and meta-analysis. It will be good to discuss why your study finding is different from Baylan et al. in light of these studies.

Author response 5: Thank you for the comment. In the study, we included more studies about the prevalence of insomnia in patients with stroke. We revealed the incidence of insomnia among stroke patients from the types of stroke, the mean age of stroke patients, and the follow-up time. This is different from the Baylan et al. systematic review and meta-analysis.

Overall:

Insomnia in patients with stroke should be differentiated from post-stroke insomnia.

Likewise, studies using diagnostic assessment tools should be differentiated from studies using non-diagnostic assessment tools.

Author response 5: Thank you for the comment. We will make corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: An important research article that discuss the prevalence of insomnia post stroke, with a metanalysis and systematic review. results determined that 48.37% of patients had stroke, with increase percentage among those older than 65 years. However herein some comments to strengthen the authors' argument.

Major flaws:

1-Authors included some studies in which the included sample patients were not all a stroke patients, and also this was mentioned in the result section of the abstract " Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for

meta-analysis, with 1,193,584 participants, of which 497,049 were

patients with stroke". it is better to determine the prevalence of insomnia among stroke patients only, and not to compare with another population .

Author response 1: Thank you for the comment. In the study, we included the cohort studies and cross-sectional studies to reveal the incidence of insomnia among patients with stroke. While some studies were cross-sectional Population based in which the included sample patients were not all a stroke patients, but we just revealed the incidence of insomnia among stroke patients. The details were shown in Table 1.

2- Polysomnographic based studies were not included entirely and herein an example of a research that was not included " Polysomnographic Characteristics of Sleep in Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chiara Baglioni , Christoph Nissen , Adrian Schweinoch , Dieter Riemann , Kai Spiegelhalder , Mathias Berger ,

Cornelius Weiller , Annette Sterr ( 2016) and was published in PLOS one journal.

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. In the study, we revealed the occurrence of developmental insomnia in stroke patients by the subject terms, such as “Stroke”, “Cerebrovascular Accident”, “Insomnia”, “Insomnia Disorder”, etc. And in the included studies, we revealed the incidence of insomnia among stroke patients from the types of stroke, the mean age of stroke patients, the follow-up time and the use of insomnia assessment diagnostic tools or not. We did not conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of polysomnographic studies comparing stroke to control populations.

3-One polysomnographic study was mentioned, however the polysomnography device specifications and reference values were not mentioned.

Author response 3: Thank you for the comment. In the study, the subgroup analyse was performed based on the use of insomnia assessment diagnostic tools (clinical assessment diagnostic tools vs self-report), so we just compared the different prevalence of insomnia among stroke patients who used the insomnia assessment tools or not.

4- A study about post stroke sleep disorders from Egypt was not included "Post-stroke sleep disorders in Egyptian patients by using simply administered questionnaires: a study from Ain Shams University.Alia H. Mansour, Maged Ayad, Naglaa El-Khayat, Ahmed El Sadek & Taha K. Alloush . The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery volume 56, Article number: 13 (2020).

Author response 4: Thank you for the comment. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

5- Discussion needs to be more rich and longer.

Author response 5: Thank you for the comment. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

6-Regarding references : in some references author's first and last name are written in full , and in others only initials included . Reference 15, and 19 need revision .

Author response 6: Thank you for the comment. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The authors provide a meta analysis of the association of insomnia and stroke. They find that insomnia is common after stroke. The paper is generally well written. Specific comments follow.

Comments 1:

The biggest issue with this paper is that one study dominates the meta analysis. Is it appropriate to do a meta analysis under such circumstances? Aren’t your results just a duplication of the dominant study? You seem to deal with this by the random effects model. Please say more about this and how it is applied to this study.

Author response 1: Thank you for the comment. In the study, 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although one study included a relatively large number of stroke, but we also compared the different prevalence of insomnia among stroke patients by follow-up time, age, and the insomnia assessment tools or not. The frequency of insomnia development in stroke during follow-up was detected by a fixed or random-effects model. If P ≥ 0.10 and I2 ≤ 50%, the data were homogeneous across studies and were analysed using a fixed effects model. If P< 0.10 and/or I2 > 50%, we need to find the source of heterogeneity, or in cases where the source of heterogeneity was unclear, a random-effects model was used.

Comments 2:

There is significant heterogeneity in the studies. Again, doesn’t this suggest that a meta analysis is not appropriate?

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. The heterogeneity in the study did not mean the meta analysis is not appropriate. Conversely, we should analysis the prevalence of insomnia among stroke patients in subgroup analysis.

Comments 3:

Your study finds associations which are not necessarily causal. Please change the language throughout the paper to reflect this association.

Author response 3: Thank you for the comment. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

Comments 4:

It’s a bit unusual to include anything other than clinical trials and cohort studies in meta analyses. How do you results change when you exclude the other study types?

Author response 4: Thank you for the comment. In the study, we included the cohort studies and cross-sectional studies to reveal the incidence of insomnia among patients with stroke. This is a cross-sectional study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 3 Response to editors.docx

pone.0297941.s004.docx (33KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Tanja Grubić Kezele

12 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-27856R1Development of Insomnia in patients with Stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Based on the reviewers' suggestions, the paper needs major revision.  The reviewers' comments can be found below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tanja Grubić Kezele, Ph.D., M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for this work and meta analysis on insomnia with stroke . Thank you for the responses you have made .

1- in line 105 under eligibility criteria and study selection , Epwarth sleepiness scale is written as an assessment scale for insomnia however it is an assessment scale for EDS ( excessive day time sleepiness )

2- the comparison between the percentage of insomnia in Ischemic stroke and haemorrhage with P value was not mentioned .

3- It would be better to correlate insomnia with other factors in stroke patients as DM , and HTN as this might contribute to the insomnia , also correlation with the size and site of the stroke will enrich the manuscript and help in reaching to the conclusion written.

Reviewer #3: I have no additional comments for the authors.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 10;19(4):e0297941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297941.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Jan 2024

Response Letter

Re: Responses to Reviewers. Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-27856, submitted to PLOS ONE Journal, “Development of Insomnia in patients with Stroke: A systematic meta-analysis”.

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We appreciate the detailed and constructive comments provided by you. We have carefully revised the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions by the editors and Reviewers panel.

In the manuscript, we have tried our best to improve the writing of all text. We believe that this revised manuscript has addressed your concerns. Thank you for your help. We look forward to hearing from you about further status of our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lin aitao

Reviewer#2:

Comments 1:

in line 105 under eligibility criteria and study selection , Epwarth sleepiness scale is written as an assessment scale for insomnia however it is an assessment scale for EDS (excessive day time sleepiness).

Author response 1: Thank you for the comment. We agreed with the reviewer. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript on page 5, lines 97 - 98.

Comments 2:

the comparison between the percentage of insomnia in Ischemic stroke and haemorrhage with P value was not mentioned.

Author response 2: Thank you for the comment. We regretted that we did not get the prevalence of insomnia in Ischemic stroke and haemorrhage, respectively. So, in the study, the comparison between the percentage of insomnia in Ischemic stroke and haemorrhage with P value was not mentioned. More research needs to be investigated in the future.

Comments 3:

It would be better to correlate insomnia with other factors in stroke patients as DM, and HTN as this might contribute to the insomnia, also correlation with the size and site of the stroke will enrich the manuscript and help in reaching to the conclusion written.

Author response 3: Thank you for the comment. We agreed with the reviewer. But in the study, 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. We regretted that we did not get the correlate insomnia with other factors in stroke patients. Besides, we did not get the data of the size and site of the stroke patients, too. More research needs to be investigated in the future.

Decision Letter 2

Tanja Grubić Kezele

16 Jan 2024

Development of Insomnia in patients with Stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-23-27856R2

Dear Dr. Lin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tanja Grubić Kezele, Ph.D., M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: a meta analysis of post stroke insomnia which is an important factor in morbidity and burden after stroke , and concluded that the use of insomnia quantitative questionnaires are important . And that insomnia increase with increasing age . Clinical application to this meta analysis is that it is important to manage insomnia in the acute phase , which will improve quality of life and contribute to recovery .

Reviewer #3: None

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Tanja Grubić Kezele

27 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-27856R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. dr. Tanja Grubić Kezele

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0297941.s001.docx (818.4KB, docx)
    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    pone.0297941.s002.xlsx (21.3KB, xlsx)
    S1 File

    (PDF)

    pone.0297941.s003.pdf (110.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 3 Response to editors.docx

    pone.0297941.s004.docx (33KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES