Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):e0165799. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165799

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

Where studies reported several datasets, these are specified separately.

1st Author Year Ref. nsubjects ntimepoints Regression weight, % Notes
Sothern 1995 [17] 11 8 0.99 a
Späth-Schwalbe 1998 [41] 16 4 1.01
Dugué 1998 [42] 22 3 1.21
Vgontzas 1999 [24] 8 24 1.24
Ündar 1999 [37] 10 7 0.84
Späth-Schwalbe 2000 [43] 18 3 0.99
Redwine 2000 [44] 31 15 3.80 b
Haack 2000 [45] 20 9 1.90
Vgontzas 2000 [46] 12; 11 2; 2 0.54; 0.49 c
Baker 2001 [47] 8 6 0.62
Haack 2001 [48] 10 10 1.00
Haack 2002 [21] 12 25 1.99
Vgontzas 2002 [35] 11 24 1.71
Vgontzas 2003 [34] 15; 13 48; 48 3.29; 2.85
Alberti 2003 [49] 20 2 0.49
Irwin 2004 [50] 15 4 0.95
Vgontzas 2004 [51] 25 48 5.49
Szczudlik 2004 [52] 17 4 1.08
Alesci 2005 [33] 9 22 1.34
Mehra 2006 [26] 150; 23; 12; 35; 30 2; 2; 2; 2; 2 6.72; 1.03; 0.54; 1.56; 1.34 d
Burgos 2006 [38] 11 8 0.99
Vgontzas 2007 [53] 20; 20 48; 48 4.39; 4.39 e
Frey 2007 [54] 19 15 2.33 b
Lindahl 2007 [55] 14 4 0.89
Miles 2008 [40] 51 5 3.61
Vgontzas 2008 [56] 15; 13 48; 48 3.29; 2.85
Knudsen 2008 [39] 15 8 1.14 a, f
Benedict 2009 [57] 17 15 2.09
Peeling 2009 [58] 8 5 0.57
Phillips 2010 [59] 7 3; 3 0.38; 0.38 g
Rief 2010 [60] 60; 52 2; 2 2.69; 2.33
Gill 2010 [61] 14 13 1.60
Chennaoui 2011 [62] 12 6 0.93
Pledge 2011 [63] 6 4 0.76
Crispim 2012 [64] 6; 7; 9 7; 7; 7 0.50; 0.59; 0.75
Voderholzer 2012 [65] 16 6 1.24
Grigoleit 2012 [66] 10 7 0.84
Abedelmalek 2013 [67] 12 2 0.54
Pejovic 2013 [68] 30 24 4.65
Lekander 2013 [69] 9 40 1.30 a
Agorastos 2014 [36] 11 24 1.71
Kritikou 2014 [70] 18; 21 24; 24 2.79, 3.26
Karshikoff 2015 [18] 21 4 1.31 a, h
Total 1100 789 100

a: Individual participant data were available. b: Some data were given in time relative to sleep onset or wake-up, and were re-coded using mean chronological time as a best approximation. c: Averaged over 3 consecutive days. d: 358 of 385 participants were included in analyses of IL-6. Final n for each sub-group was not given, and was therefore conservatively coded as the lowest possible n in each sub-group. Error bars were denoted as standard deviation, but were coded as standard errors because they were incredibly small for standard deviations. e: Each dataset was said to have 50% of the total participants (n = 41), and both were conservatively coded as n = 20. f: 15 of 16 participants could be identified in the graph. g: The same 7 participants were included twice with a 10-week interval, yielding two different data sets. h: We have previously published data from this study [71].