From: Comparative effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a systematic review
Study | Group | Sleep latency | Total sleep time | Total wake time | Efficiency | Other | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBT-I vs. zopiclone | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | SWS | Â |
Sievertsen 2006 [29] | CBT-I: 18 | Not reported | –5.0 min | –60.7 min | +8.7% | +21.1 min |  |
Zopiclone :16 | –56.2 min | –9.9 min | –0.4% | –17.6 min | |||
6 months | Â | p = NS | p = 0.01 | p = 0.008 | p = 0.001 | ||
Polysomnography | |||||||
Sleep diary | CBT-I: 18 | Not reported | +42.4 min | –73.3 min | +14.2% |  | |
Zopiclone :16 | +40.5 min | –42.2 min | +10.7% | ||||
 | p = NS | p = 0.03 | p = NS | ||||
CBT-I vs. zolpidem | |||||||
Jacobs 2004 [30] | CBT-I: 8 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | No long-term follow-up for zolpidem group |
12 months | Zolpidem: none | ||||||
Sleep diary | |||||||
CBT-I vs. temazepam | WASO | Â | |||||
Wu 2006 [31] | CBT-I: 19 | –32.8 min | +30.3 min | Not reported | +10.2% |  | p values based on post-intervention differences |
8 months | Temazepam: 17 | –17.2 min | –13.0 min | –1.9% | |||
Polysomnography | Â | p < 0.004 | p < 0.05 | p < 0.01 | |||
Sleep diary | CBT-I: 19 | –41.8 min | 45.5 min | Not reported | +16.8% | ||
Temazepam: 17 | –20.5 min | –6.0 min | +3.9% | ||||
 | p < 0.003 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.05 | ||||
Morin 1999 [31] | CBT-I: 13 | Not reported | +65.2 min | Not reported | +16.4% | –16.5 min | All measurements in temazepam group significantly worsened from end of treatment to end of follow-up. |
24 months | |||||||
Sleep diary | Temazepam: 12 | +11.5 min | +2.9% | –4.6 min | |||
 | p = NR | p = NR | p = NR | ||||
CBT-I vs. triazolam | |||||||
McCluskey 1991 [33] | CBT-I: 15 | –45 min | +51 min | Not reported | Not reported |  |  |
8 weeks | Triazolam :15 | –21 min | +14 min | ||||
Sleep diary | Â | p < 0.01 | p = NR |