The story reports on a University of Pennsylvania research study that probed 66 other studies, in what is known as a meta-analysis. Researchers examined how sleep deprivation — anything from three to four hours of sleep followed by 20 to 21 hours awake to no sleep for 36 straight hours — could ease depression symptoms. In studies they probed, 45 percent to 50 percent of patients reported feeling less depressed.
But the benefit does not last long, and the story wisely gives readers this context. This is something we wished had been emphasized in the news release on this study, which we also reviewed.
Depression is a major cause of disability in the US and around the world, with estimates that 16.1 million adults in the US had an episode in 2015, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. The most common treatment for depression is drugs, antidepressants, which don’t work for everyone and have side effects. This study of other studies was partly trying to narrow the focus on when sleep deprivation works in order to help researchers launch new studies to try to understand the mechanisms of this benefit. The story helps readers understand this: “He’s [researcher] not hoping to use sleep deprivation as a treatment but thinks that pinpointing what it does to the brain will help doctors develop other, more sustained treatments.”
The release does not mention costs. One may assume there is no cost to sleep deprivation but the deprivation in the studies was mostly monitored in inpatient facilities, which can be expensive.
The story just squeaks by on this, but we want to especially compliment the story for pointing out that the benefits are short-lived. While the story does not use a lot of numeric quantification, it does provide important context for how to view the study results.
Here’s what it says about benefits: “Their work confirmed that sleep deprivation — anything from three to four hours of sleep followed by 20 to 21 hours awake to no sleep for 36 straight hours — is indeed a powerful antidote to depression. In the 66 studies they analyzed, 45 percent to 50 percent reported feeling less depressed.”
But this is the part that puts a context around that for readers:
“That sounds great, but there’s a huge problem: For more than 80 percent of patients, the antidepressant effects are lost as soon as they get a good night’s rest. Repeated exposure to sleep deprivation has had mixed results.”
The story does not include the potential harms of sleep deprivation, which are extensive.
The story explains that the study was a meta-analysis of other studies, and it points out important limitations to help readers understand that quality of the evidence.
There was no disease mongering, and we thought the story did a good job of explaining the mysteries that still surround sleep’s relationship to mood. While sleep deprivation seems to create a temporary lifting of depression, it is also true that insomnia is a frequent symptom of depression. The story includes contradictions that remain to be resolved for researchers.
The story did not include any independent sources.
The story briefly hints at the other common treatments: drugs (notably antidepressants) and talk therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy.
The story explains it is not widely available as a therapeutic in clinics.
“Experts theorize that sleep deprivation may reset the circadian clock. But it is rarely used for treatment because it wears off so fast.
“I know of about three clinics worldwide that routinely use it,” Gehrman said. There are some studies showing that it can be helpful when combined with light or antidepressant medication treatment.”
The story explains that the study was novel primarily because of the meta-analysis approach.
The story does not rely on the news release, and demonstrates independent reporting by adding details and quotes that were not part of the release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like