Skip to main content
. 2009 Nov 24;257(4):646–652. doi: 10.1007/s00415-009-5390-1

Table 3.

PSQI global and component scores of self-reported CMT patients and control subjects

Present study (1)
CMT1, CMT2, CMTX (with known genetic diagnosis) Other/unclassified CMT All CMT patients CMT and concomitant disease Controls
n 157 70 227 21 234 1,049
Age 41.5 (11.0) 42.2 (12.5) 41.2 (12.6) 50.4 (8.6) 42.0 (12.9) 41.9
PSQI global score 8.0 (2.8) 7.8 (2.8) 7.9 (2.8) 8.7 (3.4) 3.7 (2.3) 4.6 (3.7)
Sleep quality 1.4 (0.7) 1.4 (0.7) 1.4 (0.7) 1.6 (0.9) 0.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.8)
Sleep latency 1.6 (0.9) 1.4 (0.9) 1.5 (0.9) 1.6 (1.0) 0.6 (0.7) 0.9 (0.9)
Sleep duration 1.0 (0.7) 0.8 (0.7) 0.9 (0.7) 1.3 (1.1) 0.6 (0.7) 0.7 (0.7)
Sleep efficiency 0.9 (1.0) 0.9 (1.1) 0.9 (1.0) 1.1 (1.2) 0.3 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7)
Sleep disturbances 1.5 (0.6) 1.4 (0.6) 1.5 (0.6) 1.7 (0.7) 0.9 (0.4) 0.8 (1.0)
Sleep medication 0.1 (0.3) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 1.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.7)
Daytime dysfunction 1.6 (0.7) 1.6 (0.7) 1.6 (0.7) 1.5 (0.8) 0.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.8)

PSQI global and component scores of self-reported CMT patients and control subjects. The far right column (1) shows data obtained from a large cohort of the Austrian normal population using the German version of the PSQI [28]. Numbers depict mean and standard deviation (in brackets). In CMT patients, PSQI global score and 6 out of the 7 component scores were significantly higher than in control subjects (numbers are printed in bold, p < 0.001). Patients with CMT and concomitant disease reached even higher scores on the PSQI. Data obtained from patients who identified themselves as genetically diagnosed with CMT1, CMT2 or CMTX were combined since ANOVA analysis did not show any differences between these subgroups