Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review

Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605" }, "headline": "Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review", "datePublished": "2025-06-20T09:39:17", "dateModified": "2025-12-12T04:58:18", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Katsuyoshi Tanaka" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yuichi Isaji" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kosuke Suzuki" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kohei Okuyama" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yasuyuki Kurasawa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Masateru Hayashi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Takashi Kitagawa" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Sleep disturbances frequently occur in concomitance with chronic pain, exacerbating its detrimental effects and diminishing patients’ quality of life. Although various studies have explored the relationship between chronic pain and sleep disturbances, comprehensive evidence on detailed assessment methods and their bidirectional interactions remains limited. This scoping review aimed to examine the characteristics and prevalence of assessment methods for sleep and pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. Methods A comprehensive search of nine databases identified observational and interventional studies examining the relationship between sleep disturbances/disorders and chronic pain in adults. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) as well as gray literature sources, Open Grey. In addition, the following trial registries were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Results This review included 81 of 3,513 studies. Approximately 90.1% of studies relied on self-report sleep assessments, whereas only 9.9% incorporated objective measures. Additionally, 7.4% of studies used a combination of self-report and objective sleep assessments. The visual analog and numeric rating scales were the most frequently used methods for assessing pain-related outcomes (59.3%). Despite extensive research on sleep and chronic pain, critical gaps persist, particularly in the integration of multidimensional assessment tools. Conclusions This scoping review discovered imbalances in the content of both sleep and pain assessments. Future studies should integrate both objective and self-report assessment tools to provide a more comprehensive understanding of this interaction. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3", "name": "Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients..." } } ] } Home Browse Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Tanaka K, Isaji Y, Suzuki K et al. Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] Katsuyoshi Tanaka https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-0287 1 , Yuichi Isaji https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1190-6652 1 , Kosuke Suzuki https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2344-6029 2 , [...] Kohei Okuyama https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9876-1307 1 , Yasuyuki Kurasawa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-5261 3 , Masateru Hayashi 4 , Takashi Kitagawa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8596-8381 5 Katsuyoshi Tanaka https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-0287 1 , Yuichi Isaji https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1190-6652 1 , [...] Kosuke Suzuki https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2344-6029 2 , Kohei Okuyama https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9876-1307 1 , Yasuyuki Kurasawa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-5261 3 , Masateru Hayashi 4 , Takashi Kitagawa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8596-8381 5 PUBLISHED 12 Dec 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan 2 Department of Rehabilitation, Yamagata Saisei Hospital, Yamagata, Yamagata, Japan 3 Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Nagano University of Health and Medicine, Nagano, Nagano, Japan 4 Department of Rehabilitation, Matsuoka Orthopedic Surgery and Internal Medicine Rehabilitation, Gifu, Gifu, Japan 5 Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Shinshu University, Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan Katsuyoshi Tanaka Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Yuichi Isaji Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Kosuke Suzuki Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Kohei Okuyama Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Yasuyuki Kurasawa Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Masateru Hayashi Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Takashi Kitagawa Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Circadian Clocks in Health and Disease collection. Abstract Background Sleep disturbances frequently occur in concomitance with chronic pain, exacerbating its detrimental effects and diminishing patients’ quality of life. Although various studies have explored the relationship between chronic pain and sleep disturbances, comprehensive evidence on detailed assessment methods and their bidirectional interactions remains limited. This scoping review aimed to examine the characteristics and prevalence of assessment methods for sleep and pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. Methods A comprehensive search of nine databases identified observational and interventional studies examining the relationship between sleep disturbances/disorders and chronic pain in adults. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) as well as gray literature sources, Open Grey. In addition, the following trial registries were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Results This review included 81 of 3,513 studies. Approximately 90.1% of studies relied on self-report sleep assessments, whereas only 9.9% incorporated objective measures. Additionally, 7.4% of studies used a combination of self-report and objective sleep assessments. The visual analog and numeric rating scales were the most frequently used methods for assessing pain-related outcomes (59.3%). Despite extensive research on sleep and chronic pain, critical gaps persist, particularly in the integration of multidimensional assessment tools. Conclusions This scoping review discovered imbalances in the content of both sleep and pain assessments. Future studies should integrate both objective and self-report assessment tools to provide a more comprehensive understanding of this interaction. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords pain, sleep disturbances, assessment tools Corresponding Author(s) Katsuyoshi Tanaka ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Katsuyoshi Tanaka Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Tanaka K et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Tanaka K, Isaji Y, Suzuki K et al. Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.3 ) First published: 20 Jun 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.1 ) Latest published: 12 Dec 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 In this revised version, we have addressed the reviewer's comments by strengthening the synthesis of our findings and deepening the discussion. The Introduction and Methods sections have been revised to clarify the study rationale and detail the categorization process for the assessment tools. In the Results, we added a narrative summary describing the associations between sleep and pain outcomes, highlighting the discrepancy between patient-reported correlations and objective measures. A new table has been included to systematically map the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains (e.g., intensity, interference, psychosocial factors), providing a clear overview of the usage frequencies. Furthermore, the Discussion section has been expanded to elaborate on the bidirectional nature of the sleep-pain relationship, incorporating recent evidence on sleep deprivation and hypothesize neurobiological mechanisms. The reference list has been updated to support these additions. In this revised version, we have addressed the reviewer's comments by strengthening the synthesis of our findings and deepening the discussion. The Introduction and Methods sections have been revised to clarify the study rationale and detail the categorization process for the assessment tools. In the Results, we added a narrative summary describing the associations between sleep and pain outcomes, highlighting the discrepancy between patient-reported correlations and objective measures. A new table has been included to systematically map the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains (e.g., intensity, interference, psychosocial factors), providing a clear overview of the usage frequencies. Furthermore, the Discussion section has been expanded to elaborate on the bidirectional nature of the sleep-pain relationship, incorporating recent evidence on sleep deprivation and hypothesize neurobiological mechanisms. The reference list has been updated to support these additions. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yuri Chaves Martins and Peyton Murin See the authors' detailed response to the review by Brett D Neilson READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain. The World Health Organization recognizes chronic pain as a disease, making it one of the most prevalent conditions worldwide. 1 Chronic pain results in significant disability and imposes a substantial economic strain on society. 2 In addition to persistent pain, individuals with chronic pain experience various consequences, including deterioration in the quality of life (QOL), higher prevalence of depressive symptoms, and greater levels of disability compared with those without pain. 3 The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial. 4 This underlines the extensive influence of pain on the individual and the community as a whole. Furthermore, chronic pain often coexists with sleep disturbances, which exacerbate the adverse effects of pain, adding to the overall strain on individuals and society. 5 , 6 Patients with chronic pain frequently develop sleep disturbances. 7 – 10 Sleep disturbance including inadequate sleep, insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea, represent significant and widespread health concerns. 11 , 12 Notably, the prevalence of sleep disturbance is high among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, affecting approximately 75% and 44% of such individuals, respectively. 9 , 13 Previous studies have suggested a correlation between compromised sleep and reduced QOL, adverse general health outcomes, elevated levels of depression, and diminished physical function. 14 Additionally, the concomitance of chronic pain and sleep disturbances leads to further deterioration in overall health and QOL. A bidirectional association has also been suggested, wherein pain negatively affects sleep, and sleep disturbances contribute to increased pain. 15 Polysomnography, which is considered the gold standard for the objective assessment of sleep, has been used in various chronic pain conditions, such as fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and temporomandibular pain. 7 , 16 In addition to polysomnography, sleep assessment, encompassing sleep duration and quality, has been conducted using several tools, such as actigraphy, questionnaires, and wearable devices. 17 , 18 Moreover, although several studies have investigated the relationship between sleep and chronic pain, most existing reviews have focused on specific populations, such as those with postsurgical pain, pediatric pain, or low back pain. 19 – 21 Thus, comprehensive evidence on detailed methods for assessing the relationship between chronic pain and sleep disturbance remains scarce. Therefore, this scoping review (ScR) aimed to examine the characteristics and prevalence of methods used to assess sleep and pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain and to identify gaps in the evidence, with the objective of guiding future studies. 2. Methods This ScR was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, following all eight recommended steps without deviation. 22 The study was registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ) on March 29, 2024. This review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The inclusion criteria were established based on the participants, concept, and context of the study. 2.1 Eligibility criteria This ScR included studies on individuals with chronic pain lasting for >3 months. Studies on individuals with malignancy-related or cancer-related pain or acute pain conditions, such as postoperative pain, were excluded. Moreover, studies that included children (≤18 years) and/or participants with other conditions besides chronic pain were excluded. No restrictions were imposed with respect to the sex, location, race, country, or language of the participants. This review evaluated the measurement tools used for sleep assessment in individuals with chronic pain conditions, including polysomnography, wearable devices, and questionnaires. Additionally, we identified various types of pain-related assessments, including pain intensity, severity, disability, catastrophizing, threshold, and tolerance. In other words, we included studies that involved sleep assessments in individuals with chronic pain conditions. This ScR included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), crossover trials, quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, cross-sectional studies, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies, encompassing both observational and interventional designs. Protocols and conference abstracts were included in the initial screening, with a secondary screening conducted to verify the existence of published articles. Case reports, case-control studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and narrative reviews were excluded. 2.2 Search strategy The search strategy was designed to identify both published and unpublished studies. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) as well as gray literature sources, Open Grey. In addition, the following trial registries were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov . The text words found in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, along with the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a comprehensive search strategy across nine databases (the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Table S1). Previous studies were also referenced. 19 , 23 , 24 Studies published in any language were included, with no restrictions on the publication date. The final comprehensive search was conducted on March 29, 2024. 2.3 Study selection and source of evidence All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Ar Rayyan, Qatar, https://www.rayyan.ai/ ), and duplicates were removed. Following a pilot test, two or more independent reviewers (K.T. and Y.I.) screened the study titles and abstracts based on the eligibility criteria. The full text of relevant sources was retrieved, and their citation details were imported into Rayyan. Two or more independent reviewers (K.T., Y.I., K.S., M.H., K.O., and Y.K.) assessed the full text of the selected studies based on the eligibility criteria. The reasons for excluding sources that did not meet the eligibility criteria were documented and reported in this ScR. Any disagreements between reviewers at each stage of selection were resolved through discussion or by consulting additional reviewers. The results of the search and study inclusion process were comprehensively reported in the final ScR and illustrated in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for ScR flow diagram. 25 2.4 Data extraction Data were extracted from the included studies using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) by the first author (K.T.), with the assistance of ChatGPT-4o (San Francisco, CA, USA) and NotebookLM (Mountain View, CA, USA). 26 , 27 These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs generated by AI were reviewed and verified against the original sources by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy, and all final decisions were made by the research team. No dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used for data extraction. The extracted data included the first author’s name, country of origin, study design, sample size, participant characteristics (age, sex, and diagnosis), and tools used for assessing sleep disturbance and pain-related outcomes. The draft data extraction tool was modified and refined as necessary throughout the data extraction process. Where necessary, the authors of the included studies were contacted to obtain any missing or additional data. To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”. Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers. 2.5 Sensitivity statement on search recency The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends. 3. Results 3.1 Study selection A total of 3,513 articles were retrieved during the database search. After eliminating 1,296 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 2,217 articles were screened. Thereafter, the full texts of the remaining 415 articles were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, only 81 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the structure of the search and screening process. 3.2 Study and participant characteristics Of the 81 included studies, 26 (32.1%) were RCTs, 28 – 53 while the remaining studies were non-RCTs. 54 – 108 The included studies were published between 1998 and 2024, with nearly half (45.7%, 37 of 81) published within the last 5 years. 30 – 32 , 34 – 36 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 48 , 51 – 54 , 58 , 59 , 63 , 67 , 68 , 73 , 76 , 78 – 82 , 85 – 87 , 90 – 93 , 95 , 96 , 101 , 106 The distribution of participants varied across studies: 31 studies (38.3%) focused on examining patients with chronic pain, irrespective of pain type, accounting for 40.5% of the total participants (7,413 out of 18,316). 32 , 38 , 42 , 47 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 65 , 67 , 69 – 73 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 85 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 92 , 94 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 103 , 106 Eleven studies (13.6%) investigated patients with chronic low back pain, accounting for 12.4% of the total participants (2,266 participants). 33 , 36 , 46 , 48 , 56 , 81 , 90 , 95 , 98 , 107 , 108 Eight studies (9.9%) examined patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, irrespective of location, accounting for 9.1% of the total participants (1,667 individuals). 41 , 62 – 64 , 77 , 78 , 86 , 105 Six studies (7.4%) assessed patients with chronic neck pain, comprising 5.2% of the total participants (950 participants). 34 , 40 , 60 , 61 , 96 , 100 To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2. Table 1. Summary of included studies and participant characteristics. Category N (%) or Median (IQR) Study design RCTs 26 (32.1%) non-RCTs 55 (67.9%) Publication period 1998–2024 (45.7% after 2019) Age (years) 48.1 (44.0-54.1) * Female participants (%) 61.4 (53.4-72.5) ** Pain type Chronic pain 31 (38.3%) CLBP 11 (13.6%) Chronic musculoskeletal pain 8 (9.9%) CNP 6 (7.4%) Chronic pain and insomnia 3 (3.7%) CTTH 2 (2.5%) PHN 2 (2.5%) Fibromyalgia or CLBP 1 (1.2%) Idiopathic chronic pain 1 (1.2%) Chronic spinal degenerative disease 1 (1.2%) Traumatic SCI 1 (1.2%) ICONP and MMP 1 (1.2%) Chronic Migraine 1 (1.2%) CLBP, and unspecified back pain 1 (1.2%) Orofacial pain 1 (1.2%) Chronic back pain 1 (1.2%) Insomnia, chronic musculoskeletal pain 1 (1.2%) TMD 1 (1.2%) Chronic pain with insomnia 1 (1.2%) Chronic pain after SCI 1 (1.2%) Osteoarthritis of the knee 1 (1.2%) CNP, CLBP, and/or generalized pain 1 (1.2%) NSCNP 1 (1.2%) NSCSP and comorbid insomnia 1 (1.2%) Masticatory/cervical muscle pain or temporomandibular joint pain 1 (1.2%) * Reported in 79 studies. ** Reported in 74 studies. 3.3 Outcome measurements An overview of the included studies is presented in supplemental materials (Table S2, S3). Various methods have been used to assess sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes, with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) being the most frequently utilized. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (45 of 81 studies, 55.6%) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (21 of 81 studies, 25.9%) were the most commonly used tools for the assessment of sleep problems ( Figure 2 ). Other self-reported sleep assessment methods used included the Athens Insomnia Scale and sleep diaries. Sleep problems were predominantly assessed based on the participant’s entries in sleep diaries. In terms of study methodology, 73 of 81 studies (90.1%) relied solely on PROs (90.1% [73/81]). 30 – 53 , 60 – 108 Only 2 of 81 studies (2.5%) relied solely objective assessments, 58 , 59 such as actigraphy, whereas 6 of 81 studies (7.4%) used a combination of PROs and objective assessments. 28 , 29 , 54 – 57 Other objective sleep assessment methods used included polysomnography and electroencephalography. Figure 2. Percentage of the combined use of sleep problem and pain-related outcome assessments. For PRO assessments, the outcomes were frequently evaluated using the numeric rating scale (NRS) or visual analog scale (VAS) (59.3% [48/81]). 32 , 34 – 41 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 – 62 , 64 – 66 , 70 – 72 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 85 , 87 , 88 , 90 , 91 , 94 – 98 , 100 , 103 , 105 , 107 , 108 The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was the second most frequently used pain assessment tool (28.4% [23/81]). 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 42 – 44 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 57 , 63 , 67 – 69 , 73 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 82 , 86 , 89 , 99 Additional pain-related outcome measures included the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Pain Disability Questionnaire. Psychometric factors were evaluated in more than half of the included studies (60.5% [49/81]). 30 , 32 , 35 – 38 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 60 – 63 , 69 – 79 , 83 – 85 , 87 , 90 – 95 , 97 – 99 , 102 , 103 , 105 , 106 , 108 Objective pain assessment was rarely performed, with only one study utilizing quantitative sensory testing. 98 Figure 2 presents the detailed percentages of the combined use of sleep problems and pain-related outcome assessments. The NRS/VAS was frequently used in combination with the PSQI (31.4%), followed by combination of the NRS/VAS with the ISI (15.6%). The simultaneous use of both self-report and objective sleep assessments, along with the NRS or VAS and the BPI, was extremely rare, occurring in only 0.6% of studies ( Figure 2 , Table 2 ). Table 2. Mapping of pain domains to assessment tools idendified in the included studies. Pain domains Assessment tools Frequency, n (%) Pain Intensity Total studies assessing this domains 71 (87.7%) Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 33 (40.8%) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 15 (18.5%) Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) * 23 (28.4%) Interference/Disability Total Studies assessing this domain 46 (56.8%) Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) * 23 (28.4%) Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ) 10 (12.3%) Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) 7 (8.6%) Region-specific (ODI, RMDQ, NDI, etc.) 6 (7.4%) Pain Quality McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ, SF-MPQ) 5 (6.2%) Psychosocial Factors Total Studies assessing this domain 49 (60.5%) Depression/Anxiety Scales (HADS, BDI, PHQ, PASS, etc.) 44 (54.3%) Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) 18 (19.8) Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) 6 (6.6%) Self-Efficacy/Acceptance (PSEQ, CPAQ) 2 (2.5%) Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) 1 (1.2%) * BPI was mapped to both “Pain Intensity” and “Pain Interference” domains as it assesses both pain severity and its impact on daily functions. 3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes. 4. Discussion This ScR highlighted the use of various measurement tools for assessing sleep and pain. The review emphasized the diversity of assessment tools used to evaluate sleep and pain, revealing substantial inconsistencies and the lack of standardization. Despite the large body of research on this topic, critical gaps persist, particularly the absence of generalizable objective measurements for sleep assessment, which may hinder the reliability and applicability of the current findings. A key finding of this review is the predominant reliance on self-report measures for evaluating sleep disturbances. Over 90% of the included studies utilized PROs, such as the PSQI or the ISI. Although these tools provide practical and accessible methods of assessing perceived sleep quality, they are inherently limited by individual biases and self-reported variability. 109 , 110 In contrast, objective measures such as actigraphy and polysomnography provide precise and quantifiable data on sleep architecture, including sleep stages, latency, and fragmentation. 111 , 112 However, these tools were employed by only a small portion of the included studies, with objective methods utilized by 9.9% (8/81) of studies. This imbalance likely stems from the challenges, which traditionally include cost and other constraints, hindering the use of objective measures, thereby complicating the comprehensive assessment of sleep disturbances. 113 , 114 Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation. Future research should prioritize the integration of these objective tools to provide a more robust understanding of sleep disturbances in individuals with chronic pain. Beyond sleep assessment, this review also identified variability and potential bias in the pain-related outcome evaluations. Most studies focused primarily on examining pain intensity, often measured using the NRS or the VAS. Although these tools are widely used and validated, 115 , 116 they only capture one aspect of the complex pain experience. 117 – 119 Approximately half of the studies assessed the psychological factors associated with pain, but other important domains, such as pain-related disability and sensitization, were less frequently explored. Notably, only one study included in this review utilized quantitative sensory testing. 98 This limited focus restricts the understanding of pain mechanisms and hinders the development of targeted treatment strategies. More comprehensive pain assessment protocols that incorporate these additional dimensions are necessary to produce clinically relevant evidence. 120 The complex relationship between sleep disturbances and chronic pain necessitates a multidimensional research approach. Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia. 121 , 122 These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 123 , 124 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration that brings together experts in neurology, psychology, and bioinformatics could facilitate the development of innovative assessment tools and therapeutic interventions. This review has some limitations. The lack of synthesis of the findings restricted our ability to evaluate methodological rigor and the overall reliability of the evidence. Additionally, the possibility of overlooking relevant studies cannot be completely excluded, which may have introduced selection bias. However, this review included gray literature and non-English studies to mitigate this potential bias. A further limitation is that the literature search was last conducted in March 2024, and more recent studies may not have been captured. 5. Conclusions This ScR highlights the imbalance in the characteristics of sleep and pain assessments, indicating the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes. Addressing the gaps in objective and multidimensional assessments could facilitate the development of personalized interventions that improve patient outcomes and overall quality of care. Ethics and consent This scoping review did not involve human participants directly, and therefore ethical approval was not required. Data availability All data underlying the results are available in the Open Science Framework repository: ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ), licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal. 125 This includes the PRISMA-ScR checklist, flowchart, data for figure and supplementary tables. Acknowledgements The authors utilized artificial intelligence tools for data extraction and the preparation of preliminary drafts. Data interpretation and final manuscript revisions were solely performed by human researchers. References 1. Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, et al. : Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain. 2019; 160 : 19–27. Publisher Full Text 2. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators: Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018; 392 : 1789–1858. Publisher Full Text 3. Andersen LN, Kohberg M, Juul-Kristensen B, et al. : Psychosocial aspects of everyday life with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review. Scand. J. Pain. 2017; 5 : 131–148. Publisher Full Text 4. Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Schmit KM, et al. : Chronic pain among adults - United States, 2019-2021. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2023; 72 : 379–385. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Toprak Celenay S, Karaaslan Y, Mete O, et al. : Coronaphobia, musculoskeletal pain, and sleep quality in stay-at home and continued-working persons during the 3-month Covid-19 pandemic lockdown in Turkey. Chronobiol. Int. 2020; 37 : 1778–1785. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Finan PH, Goodin BR, Smith MT: The association of sleep and pain: An update and a path forward. J. Pain. 2013; 14 : 1539–1552. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. Wu Y-L, Chang L-Y, Lee H-C, et al. : Sleep disturbances in fibromyalgia: A meta-analysis of case-control studies. J. Psychosom. Res. 2017; 96 : 89–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Koffel E, Kroenke K, Bair MJ, et al. : The bidirectional relationship between sleep complaints and pain: Analysis of data from a randomized trial. Health Psychol. 2016; 35 : 41–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Mathias JL, Cant ML, Burke ALJ: Sleep disturbances and sleep disorders in adults living with chronic pain: a meta-analysis. Sleep Med. 2018; 52 : 198–210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Sateia MJ: International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest. 2014; 146 : 1387–1394. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Medic G, Wille M, Hemels ME: Short- and long-term health consequences of sleep disruption. Nat. Sci. Sleep. 2017; 9 : 151–161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. Benjafield AV, Ayas NT, Eastwood PR, et al. : Estimation of the global prevalence and burden of obstructive sleep apnoea: a literature-based analysis. Lancet Respir. Med. 2019; 7 : 687–698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Sun Y, Laksono I, Selvanathan J, et al. : Prevalence of sleep disturbances in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med. Rev. 2021; 57 : 101467. 14. Chien M-Y, Chen H-C: Poor sleep quality is independently associated with physical disability in older adults. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2015; 11 : 225–232. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. Andersen ML, Araujo P, Frange C, et al. : Sleep Disturbance and Pain: A Tale of Two Common Problems. Chest. 2018; 154 : 1249–1259. Publisher Full Text 16. Bjurstrom MF, Irwin MR: Polysomnographic characteristics in nonmalignant chronic pain populations: A review of controlled studies. Sleep Med. Rev. 2016; 26 : 74–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Sanders AE, Akinkugbe AA, Bair E, et al. : Subjective Sleep Quality Deteriorates Before Development of Painful Temporomandibular Disorder. J. Pain. 2016; 17 : 669–677. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Sochacki KR, Dong D, Peterson LE, et al. : The Measurement of Orthopaedic Surgeon Quality and Quantity of Sleep Using a Validated Wearable Device. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2018; 2 : e065. Publisher Full Text 19. Van Looveren E, Bilterys T, Munneke W, et al. : The Association between Sleep and Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review from the Last Decade. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10 : 10. Publisher Full Text 20. Varallo G, Giusti EM, Manna C, et al. : Sleep disturbances and sleep disorders as risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med. Rev. 2022; 63 : 101630. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Andreucci A, Campbell P, Dunn KM: Are sleep problems a risk factor for the onset of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents? A systematic review. Sleep. 2017; 40 : 40. Publisher Full Text 22. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. : Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020. Publisher Full Text 23. Saconi B, Polomano RC, Compton PC, et al. : The influence of sleep disturbances and sleep disorders on pain outcomes among veterans: A systematic scoping review. Sleep Med. Rev. 2021; 56 : 101411. 24. Karimi R, Mallah N, Scherer R, et al. : Sleep quality as a mediator of the relation between depression and chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2023; 130 : 747–762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. : PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018; 169 : 467–473. Publisher Full Text 26. Motzfeldt Jensen M, Brix Danielsen M, Riis J, et al. : ChatGPT-4o can serve as the second rater for data extraction in systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2025; 20 : e0313401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 27. Spillias S, Tuohy P, Andreotta M, et al. : Human-AI collaboration to identify literature for evidence synthesis. Cell Reports Sustainability. 2024; 1 : 100132. Publisher Full Text 28. Garner BK, Hopkinson SG, Ketz AK, et al. : Auricular Acupuncture for Chronic Pain and Insomnia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Med. Acupunct. 2018; 30 : 262–272. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 29. Jungquist CR, O’Brien C, Matteson-Rusby S, et al. : The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia in patients with chronic pain. Sleep Med. 2010; 11 : 302–309. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 30. Nakamura H, Sekizawa Y, Taguchi K, et al. : Randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of internet cognitive-behavioral therapy for workers with chronic tension-type headache. RIETI Discussion Paper Series. 2023; 23 : 1–30. 31. Bilterys T, Van Looveren E, Mairesse O, et al. : Predictors for physical activity and its change after active physical therapy in people with spinal pain and insomnia: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2022; 26 : 100456. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Bicego A, Monseur J, Collinet A, et al. : Complementary treatment comparison for chronic pain management: A randomized longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2021; 16 : e0256001. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. Yeh CH, Suen LK-P, Shen J, et al. : Changes in sleep with auricular point acupressure for chronic low back pain. Behav. Sleep Med. 2016; 14 : 279–294. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 34. Fatima A, Veqar Z, Zaidi S, et al. : Effects of scapular stabilization and upper limb proprioception as an adjunct to cervical stabilization in chronic neck pain patients: A randomized controlled trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2022; 29 : 291–301. 35. Akodu AK, Nwanne CA, Fapojuwo OA: Efficacy of neck stabilization and Pilates exercises on pain, sleep disturbance and kinesiophobia in patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2021; 26 : 411–419. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 36. Peng M-S, Wang R, Wang Y-Z, et al. : Efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise vs physical therapy modalities for patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized clinical trial: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open. 2022; 5 : e2142069. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 37. Wiklund T, Linton SJ, Alföldi P, et al. : Is sleep disturbance in patients with chronic pain affected by physical exercise or ACT-based stress management? - A randomized controlled study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2018; 19 : 111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Berry R, Verrier MJ, Rashiq S, et al. : A brief cognitive-behavioral intervention for sleep in individuals with chronic noncancer pain: A randomized controlled trial. Rehabil. Psychol. 2015; 60 : 193–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Babul N, Noveck R, Chipman H, et al. : Efficacy and safety of extended-release, once-daily tramadol in chronic pain: a randomized 12-week clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2004; 28 : 59–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 40. Stieven FF, Ferreira GE, Wiebusch M, et al. : Dry needling combined with guideline-based physical therapy provides no added benefit in the management of chronic neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2020; 50 : 447–454. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 41. Metri KG, Raghuram N, Narayan M, et al. : Impact of workplace yoga on pain measures, mental health, sleep quality, and quality of life in female teachers with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A randomized controlled study. Work. 2023; 76 : 521–531. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Herbert MS, Afari N, Liu L, et al. : Telehealth versus in-person acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: A randomized noninferiority trial. J. Pain. 2017; 18 : 200–211. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 43. Tang NKY, Moore C, Parsons H, et al. : Implementing a hybrid cognitive-behavioural therapy for pain-related insomnia in primary care: lessons learnt from a mixed-methods feasibility study. BMJ Open. 2020; 10 : e034764. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 44. Burke D, Lennon O, Blake C, et al. : An internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme for spinal cord injury pain: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Pain. 2019; 23 : 1264–1282. 45. Binder A, Bruxelle J, Rogers P, et al. : Topical 5% lidocaine (lignocaine) medicated plaster treatment for post-herpetic neuralgia: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational efficacy and safety trial: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational efficacy and safety trial. Clin. Drug Investig. 2009; 29 : 393–408. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 46. Tan G, Rintala DH, Jensen MP, et al. : A randomized controlled trial of hypnosis compared with biofeedback for adults with chronic low back pain: RCT of hypnosis versus biofeedback for CLBP. Eur. J. Pain. 2015; 19 : 271–280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Pedersen L, Borchgrevink PC, Breivik HP, et al. : A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of short- and long-acting dihydrocodeine in chronic non-malignant pain. Pain. 2014; 155 : 881–888. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 48. Yao C, Li Z, Zhang S, et al. : Effects of Wuqinxi in the patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2020; 2020 : 1428246. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 49. Heapy AA, Higgins DM, Goulet JL, et al. : Interactive voice response-based self-management for chronic back pain: The COPES noninferiority randomized trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2017; 177 : 765–773. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 50. Abrahamsen R, Zachariae R, Svensson P: Effect of hypnosis on oral function and psychological factors in temporomandibular disorders patients. J. Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36 : 556–570. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 51. Onyeakazi UM, Columb MO, Rosalind A, et al. : Melatonin treatment has consistent but transient beneficial effects on sleep measures and pain in patients with severe chronic pain: the DREAM-CP randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2024; 132 : 725–734. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 52. Rickardsson J, Gentili C, Holmström L, et al. : Internet-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy as microlearning for chronic pain: A randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Eur. J. Pain. 2021; 25 : 1012–1030. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 53. Kwon H-J, Kim D-H, Cho S-S, et al. : Comparison of adjuvant hypertonic saline and normal saline for epidural block in patients with postherpetic neuralgia: A double-blind, randomized trial. Pain Res. Manag. 2022; 2022 : 8081443. 54. Bean DJ, Horne J, Lee AC, et al. : Pre-sleep cognitive arousal exacerbates sleep disturbance in chronic pain: an exploratory daily diary and actigraphy study. Scand. J. Pain. 2021; 21 : 724–731. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 55. Wilson KG, Watson ST, Currie SR: Daily diary and ambulatory activity monitoring of sleep in patients with insomnia associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain. 1998; 75 : 75–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 56. Gozani SN, Ferree TC, Moynihan M, et al. : Impact of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on sleep in chronic low back pain: a real-world retrospective cohort study. J. Pain Res. 2019; 12 : 743–752. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 57. Camfferman D, Moseley GL, Gertz K, et al. : Waking EEG cortical markers of chronic pain and sleepiness. Pain Med. 2017; 18 : 1921–1931. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 58. Wilson M, Skeiky L, Muck RA, et al. : Pain catastrophizing mediates the relationship between pain intensity and sleep disturbances in U.S. veterans with chronic pain. Mil. Med. 2023; 188 : e2639–e2645. 59. Dudarev V, Barral O, Radaeva M, et al. : Night time heart rate predicts next-day pain in fibromyalgia and primary back pain. Pain Rep. 2024; 9 : e1119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 60. Kim SH, Lee DH, Yoon KB, et al. : Factors associated with increased risk for clinical insomnia in patients with chronic neck pain. Pain Physician. 2015; 18 : 593–598. PubMed Abstract 61. Park SJ, Lee R, Yoon DM, et al. : Factors associated with increased risk for pain catastrophizing in patients with chronic neck pain: A retrospective cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95 : e4698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 62. Asih S, Neblett R, Mayer TG, et al. : Insomnia in a chronic musculoskeletal pain with disability population is independent of pain and depression. Spine J. 2014; 14 : 2000–2007. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 63. Kim HJ, Chang SJ, Park H, et al. : Intra-ethnic differences in chronic pain and the associated factors: An exploratory, comparative design: Intra-ethnic differences in chronic pain. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2020; 52 : 389–396. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 64. Emery PC, Wilson KG, Kowal J: Major depressive disorder and sleep disturbance in patients with chronic pain. Pain Res. Manag. 2014; 19 : 35–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 65. Marta IER, Baldan SS, Berton AF, et al. : The effectiveness of therapeutic touch on pain, depression and sleep in patients with chronic pain: clinical trial. Rev. Esc. Enferm. U.S.P. 2010; 44 : 1100–1106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 66. Boggero IA, Rojas-Ramirez MV, Carlson CR: All fatigue is not created equal: The association of fatigue and its subtypes on pain interference in orofacial pain. Clin. J. Pain. 2017; 33 : 231–237. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 67. Ponce Martinez C, Edwards KA, Roos CR, et al. : Associations among sleep disturbance, pain catastrophizing, and pain intensity for methadone-maintained patients with opioid use disorder and chronic pain. Clin. J. Pain. 2020; 36 : 641–647. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 68. Saravanan A, Bajaj P, Mathews HL, et al. : Behavioral symptom clusters, inflammation, and quality of life in chronic low back pain. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2021; 22 : 361–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 69. Byers HD, Lichstein KL, Thorn BE: Cognitive processes in comorbid poor sleep and chronic pain. J. Behav. Med. 2016; 39 : 233–240. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 70. Smith MT, Perlis ML, Haythornthwaite JA: Suicidal ideation in outpatients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: an exploratory study of the role of sleep onset insomnia and pain intensity. Clin. J. Pain. 2004; 20 : 111–118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 71. Ashworth PCH, Davidson KM, Espie CA: Cognitive-behavioral factors associated with sleep quality in chronic pain patients. Behav. Sleep Med. 2010; 8 : 28–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 72. Naughton F, Ashworth P, Skevington SM: Does sleep quality predict pain-related disability in chronic pain patients? The mediating roles of depression and pain severity. Pain. 2007; 127 : 243–252. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 73. Mun CJ, Campbell CM, McGill LS, et al. : Trajectories and individual differences in pain, emotional distress, and prescription opioid misuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: A one-year longitudinal study. J. Pain. 2022; 23 : 1234–1244. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 74. Jeff Bryson W, Joan BR, Joseph PB, et al. : A Clinical Intervention in Chronic Pain and Insomniawith a Combined Model of Treatment: A Testof Concept. J. Ration. Emot. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 2014; 32 : 279–296. Publisher Full Text 75. Garrigós-Pedrón M, Segura-Ortí E, Gracia-Naya M, et al. : Predictive factors of sleep quality in patients with chronic migraine. Neurol. (Engl Ed). 2022; 37 : 101–109. Publisher Full Text 76. Lee K-E, Ryu H, Chang SJ: The effect of pain catastrophizing on depression among older Korean adults with chronic pain: The mediating role of chronic pain interference and sleep quality. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 : 8716. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 77. Park SJ, Yoon DM, Yoon KB, et al. : Factors associated with higher reported pain levels in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A cross-sectional, correlational analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11 : e0163132. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 78. Ryum T, Jacobsen HB, Borchgrevink PC, et al. : Interpersonal problems as a predictor of pain catastrophizing in patients with chronic pain. Scand. J. Pain. 2019; 20 : 51–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 79. Yamaguchi M, Yamada K, Iseki M, et al. : Insomnia and caregiver burden in chronic pain patients: A cross-sectional clinical study. PLoS One. 2020; 15 : e0230933. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 80. Zambelli Z, Halstead EJ, Fidalgo AR, et al. : Good sleep quality improves the relationship between pain and depression among individuals with chronic pain. Front. Psychol. 2021; 12 : 668930. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 81. Carlesso LC, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Shaw W, et al. : Exploring pain phenotypes in workers with chronic low back pain: Application of IMMPACT recommendations. Can. J. Pain. 2021; 5 : 43–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 82. Vaughan R, Galley HF, Kanakarajan S: Extent of sleep problems and relationship with severity of chronic pain using three validated sleep assessment tools. Br. J. Pain. 2022; 16 : 281–289. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 83. Porto F, de Leeuw R , Evans DR, et al. : Differences in psychosocial functioning and sleep quality between idiopathic continuous orofacial neuropathic pain patients and chronic masticatory muscle pain patients. J. Orofac. Pain. 2011; 25 : 117–124. PubMed Abstract 84. Avluk OC, Gurcay E, Gurcay AG, et al. : Effects of chronic pain on function, depression, and sleep among patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Ann. Saudi Med. 2014; 34 : 211–216. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 85. Tsuji H, Tetsunaga T, Tetsunaga T, et al. : Cognitive factors associated with locomotive syndrome in chronic pain patients: A retrospective study. J. Orthop. Sci. 2021; 26 : 896–901. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 86. Skúladóttir H, Björnsdottir A, Holden JE, et al. : Pain rehabilitation’s effect on people in chronic pain: A prospective cohort study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 : 10306. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 87. Koh K, Yamada K, Enomoto T, et al. : Sex-specific impact of pain severity, insomnia, and psychosocial factors on disability due to spinal degenerative disease. Pain Res. Manag. 2020; 2020 : 8496527. 88. Park JH, Kim JH, Yun SC, et al. : Evaluation of efficacy and safety of fentanyl transdermal patch (Durogesic D-TRANS) in chronic pain. Acta Neurochir. 2011; 153 : 181–190. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 89. Tang NKY, Goodchild CE, Hester J, et al. : Mental defeat is linked to interference, distress and disability in chronic pain. Pain. 2010; 149 : 547–554. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 90. Moriki K, Tushima E, Ogihara H, et al. : Combined effects of lifestyle and psychosocial factors on central sensitization in patients with chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional study. J. Orthop. Sci. 2022; 27 : 1185–1189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 91. Dong H-J, Dragioti E, Rivano Fischer M, et al. : Lose pain, lose weight, and lose both: A cohort study of patients with chronic pain and obesity using a national quality registry. J. Pain Res. 2021; 14 : 1863–1873. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 92. Capano A, Weaver R, Burkman E: Evaluation of the effects of CBD hemp extract on opioid use and quality of life indicators in chronic pain patients: A prospective cohort study. Postgrad. Med. 2020; 132 : 56–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 93. Miller MB, Roumanis MJ, Kakinami L, et al. : Chronic pain patients’ kinesiophobia and catastrophizing are associated with activity intensity at different times of the day. J. Pain Res. 2020; 13 : 273–284. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 94. Hållstam A, Löfgren M, Benson L, et al. : Assessment and treatment at a pain clinic: A one-year follow-up of patients with chronic pain. Scand. J. Pain. 2017; 17 : 233–242. Publisher Full Text 95. Suzuki H, Aono S, Inoue S, et al. : Clinically significant changes in pain along the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with chronic low back pain. PLoS One. 2020; 15 : e0229228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 96. Juan W, Rui L, Wei-Wen Z: Chronic neck pain and depression: The mediating role of sleep quality and exercise. Psychol. Health Med. 2020; 25 : 1029–1035. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 97. Cho S, Kim G-S, Lee J-H: Psychometric evaluation of the sleep hygiene index: a sample of patients with chronic pain. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2013; 11 : 213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 98. Rabey M, Slater H, O’Sullivan P, et al. : Somatosensory nociceptive characteristics differentiate subgroups in people with chronic low back pain: a cluster analysis: a cluster analysis. Pain. 2015; 156 : 1874–1884. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 99. Baker KS, Gibson SJ, Georgiou-Karistianis N, et al. : Relationship between self-reported cognitive difficulties, objective neuropsychological test performance and psychological distress in chronic pain. Eur. J. Pain. 2018; 22 : 601–613. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 100. Kang J-H, Chen H-S, Chen S-C, et al. : Disability in patients with chronic neck pain: heart rate variability analysis and cluster analysis. Clin. J. Pain. 2012; 28 : 797–803. Publisher Full Text 101. Saito T, Chen T, Yatsugi H, et al. : Association between the number of chronic pain sites and neuropathic-like symptoms in community-dwelling older adults with chronic pain: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2023; 13 : e066554. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 102. De Leeuw R, Bertoli E, Schmidt JE, et al. : Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in orofacial pain patients. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2005; 99 : 558–568. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 103. Murphy JL, Phillips KM, Rafie S: Sex differences between Veterans participating in interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2016; 53 : 83–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 104. Gopichandran L, Kanniammal C, Valli G, et al. : Sleep Quality in Patients of Chronic Tension TypeHead Ache: Report from a Tertiary Care Facility. Nurs. J. India. 2018; 109 : 35–41. 105. Neblett R, Mayer TG, Williams MJ, et al. : The fear-Avoidance Components Scale (FACS): Responsiveness to functional restoration treatment in a chronic musculoskeletal pain disorder (CMPD) population. Clin. J. Pain. 2017; 33 : 1088–1099. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 106. Gershoni T, Pud D, Aviram J, et al. : Wellness of patients with chronic pain is not only about pain intensity. Pain Pract. 2023; 23 : 145–154. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 107. Bahouq H, Allali F, Rkain H, et al. : Prevalence and severity of insomnia in chronic low back pain patients. Rheumatol. Int. 2013; 33 : 1277–1281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 108. Pakpour AH, Yaghoubidoust M, Campbell P: Persistent and developing sleep problems: A prospective cohort study on the relationship to poor outcome in patients attending a pain clinic with chronic low back pain. Pain Pract. 2018; 18 : 79–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 109. Korman M, Zarina D, Tkachev V, et al. : Estimation bias and agreement limits between two common self-report methods of habitual sleep duration in epidemiological surveys. Sci. Rep. 2024; 14 : 3420. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 110. Akram U, Bickle E, Howell C, et al. : Sleep-related monitoring on awakening mediates the relationship between insomnia-related interpretive bias and insomnia symptoms using the insomnia ambiguity paradigm. J. Sleep Res. 2021; 30 : e13343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 111. Smith MT, McCrae CS, Cheung J, et al. : Use of actigraphy for the Evaluation of sleep disorders and circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2018; 14 : 1209–1230. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 112. Boulos MI, Jairam T, Kendzerska T, et al. : Normal polysomnography parameters in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir. Med. 2019; 7 : 533–543. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 113. Pierson-Bartel R, Ujma PP: Objective sleep quality predicts subjective sleep ratings. Sci. Rep. 2024; 14 : 5943. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 114. O’Donnell D, Silva EJ, Münch M, et al. : Comparison of subjective and objective assessments of sleep in healthy older subjects without sleep complaints. J. Sleep Res. 2009; 18 : 254–263. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 115. Thong ISK, Jensen MP, Miró J, et al. : The validity of pain intensity measures: what do the NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R measure? Scand. J. Pain. 2018; 18 : 99–107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 116. Alghadir AH, Anwer S, Iqbal A, et al. : Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. J. Pain Res. 2018; 11 : 851–856. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 117. Bromley Milton M, Börsbo B, Rovner G, et al. : Is pain intensity really that important to assess in chronic pain patients? A study based on the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP). PLoS One. 2013; 8 : e65483. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 118. Waardenburg S, de Meij N , van Kuijk SMJ , et al. : Expectations of treatment outcome in complex cases of patients with chronic pain: A study on the DATAPAIN cohort. Pain Pract. 2024; 24 : 8–17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 119. Lier EJ, van Rijn CM , de Vries M , et al. : The interaction between pain and cognition: on the roles of task complexity and pain intensity. Scand. J. Pain. 2022; 22 : 385–395. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 120. Miettinen T, Sverloff J, Lappalainen O-P, et al. : Sleep problems in pain patients entering tertiary pain care: the role of pain-related anxiety, medication use, self-reported diseases, and sleep disorders: the role of pain-related anxiety, medication use, self-reported diseases, and sleep disorders. Pain. 2022; 163 : e812–e820. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 121. Finan PH, Goodin BR, Smith MT: The Association of Sleep and Pain: An Update and a Path Forward. J. Pain. 2013; 14 (12): 1539–1552. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 122. Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. : The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med. Rev. 2022; 66 : 101695. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 123. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, et al. : Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020; 45 : 205–216. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 124. Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al. : Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018; 98 : 325–335. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 125. Tanaka K, Isaji Y, Suzuki K, et al. : PRISMA-ScR Checklist for “Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review” [Data set]. Open Science Framework. 2025. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan 2 Department of Rehabilitation, Yamagata Saisei Hospital, Yamagata, Yamagata, Japan 3 Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Nagano University of Health and Medicine, Nagano, Nagano, Japan 4 Department of Rehabilitation, Matsuoka Orthopedic Surgery and Internal Medicine Rehabilitation, Gifu, Gifu, Japan 5 Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Shinshu University, Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan Katsuyoshi Tanaka Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Yuichi Isaji Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Kosuke Suzuki Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Kohei Okuyama Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Yasuyuki Kurasawa Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Masateru Hayashi Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Takashi Kitagawa Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 12 Dec 2025, 14:605 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.3 version 2 Revised Published: 15 Sep 2025, 14:605 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.2 version 1 Published: 20 Jun 2025, 14:605 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.1 Copyright © 2025 Tanaka K et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Tanaka K, Isaji Y, Suzuki K et al. Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166110.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 12 Dec 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Martins YC and Murin P. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r440945 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3#referee-response-440945 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Yuri Chaves Martins , Anesthesiology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA Peyton Murin , Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r440945 Response to Yuri Chaves Martins and Peyton J. Murin We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. ... Continue reading READ ALL Response to Yuri Chaves Martins and Peyton J. Murin We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” 2 nd review: The change in wording improved the flow of the introduction. Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers.” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends.” 2 nd Review: The above changes increased reproducibility of the methodology. These changes sufficiently addressed our concerns. Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” 2 nd Review: This is sufficiently addressed Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. 2 nd Review: The addition of section 3.4 adds important context to the manuscript. Our concerns are sufficiently addressed here. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” 2 nd Review: We appreciate the addition of a mechanistic discussion of the b-directional. While it would be possible to have more depth, in the context of this manuscript, the above description sufficiently describes the underlying pathophysiology. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Overall 2 nd Review: The authors have sufficiently addressed our concerns regarding the methodology, description of the results, and the depth of the discussion. We believe the manuscript is now suitable for Indexing. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sleep medicine, chronic pain, anesthesiology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Martins YC and Murin P. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r440945 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3#referee-response-440945 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Neilson BD. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r414411 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3#referee-response-414411 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Brett D Neilson , Hawai'i Pacific University, Hawaii, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r414411 Thank you to the authors for addressing my prior concerns ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you to the authors for addressing my prior concerns and recommendations. No further feedback is required at this stage. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Physical therapy researcher whose scholarly agenda is focused on the intersection of sleep and pain. I believe I am well qualified to review and approve this manuscript. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Neilson BD. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r414411 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3#referee-response-414411 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 15 Sep 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Martins YC and Murin P. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188083.r421813 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v2#referee-response-421813 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 06 Nov 2025 Yuri Chaves Martins , Anesthesiology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA Peyton Murin , Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188083.r421813 The authors provide a systematic review looking at the relationship between sleep and chronic pain. The study follows JBI guidance, is OSF-registered, adheres to PRISMA-ScR, and synthesizes 81 studies from a multi-database search (finalized March 29, 2024). They use a ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors provide a systematic review looking at the relationship between sleep and chronic pain. The study follows JBI guidance, is OSF-registered, adheres to PRISMA-ScR, and synthesizes 81 studies from a multi-database search (finalized March 29, 2024). They use a robust AI assisted approach to identify articles meeting all screening, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. They find significant heterogeneity in measures for both pain and sleep disorders, highlighting a need for more consistency in study design/approach, a well-documented problem within chronic pain. Introduction: The authors summarize the background transitioning from chronic pain to sleep disorders. Identify the high prevalence of sleep disorders and chronic pain. Address the relationship between sleep and other comorbidities including pain and identify a gap in the literature. Minor: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Methods: Approach is appropriate. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are appropriate. Use of AI is appropriate and documented. You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Results: 3.1 : No concerns 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Discussion: The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sleep medicine, chronic pain, anesthesiology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Martins YC and Murin P. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188083.r421813 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v2#referee-response-421813 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Dec 2025 Katsuyoshi Tanaka , Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan 12 Dec 2025 Author Response Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain ... Continue reading Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers. ” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends. ” Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers. ” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends. ” Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Dec 2025 Katsuyoshi Tanaka , Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan 12 Dec 2025 Author Response Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain ... Continue reading Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers. ” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends. ” Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers. ” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends. ” Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Neilson BD. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182981.r399708 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v1#referee-response-399708 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Aug 2025 Brett D Neilson , Hawai'i Pacific University, Hawaii, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182981.r399708 General Comments This is a well-organized and clearly written scoping review (ScR) that addresses an important topic: the methods used to assess sleep and pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. The authors articulate a clear aim, follow a ... Continue reading READ ALL General Comments This is a well-organized and clearly written scoping review (ScR) that addresses an important topic: the methods used to assess sleep and pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. The authors articulate a clear aim, follow a structured methodology, and present their findings with clarity. The manuscript would benefit from some clarifications and adjustments, particularly regarding terminology, methodological rigor, and reporting of results. Abstract The abstract is clear and concisely conveys the purpose and scope of the review. The aim is well articulated. No major revisions are needed for the abstract. Introduction The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Methods The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Results The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Discussion The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Summary of Key Revisions for Authors Ensure consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related dysfunction. Add citation(s) to support claims regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Clarify adherence to JBI methodology and consider referencing PRISMA-ScR. Provide detail on how ChatGPT-4o was used and how its outputs were validated. Include numerical data or clear reference to figures for key result statements. Explore how measurement inconsistencies could impact intervention outcomes. Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Acknowledge that the PRISMA-ScR checklist was used, as mentioned in the Data Availability section. Consider integrating this earlier in the Methods to emphasize adherence to reporting standards. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: I am a physical therapist educator in the Hawai‘i Pacific University Doctor of Physical Therapy Program. My research focuses on the intersection of sleep and pain, with several publications in this area. I have previously published two ScRs on a similar topic: Feda J, Miller T, Young JL, Neilson B, Rhon DI. Measures of sleep are not routinely captured in trials assessing treatment outcomes in knee osteoarthritis - A scoping systematic review and call to action. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 2023;(100400):100400. Neilson BD, Dickerson C, Young JL, Shepherd MH, Rhon DI. Measures of sleep disturbance are not routinely captured in trials for chronic low back pain: a systematic scoping review of 282 trials. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(11):1961–1970. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Neilson BD. Reviewer Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182981.r399708 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v1#referee-response-399708 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Sep 2025 Katsuyoshi Tanaka , Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan 23 Sep 2025 Author Response Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and ... Continue reading Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript to use the term “sleep disturbances” consistently when referring to general sleep-related dysfunction. In the Introduction, we also added a clarifying statement with references to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition (ICSD-3). Additionally, as recommended, we have added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. We have added the references as follow: “ Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Schmit KM, Guy GP Jr. Chronic pain among adults - United States, 2019-2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2023;72:379-385. ” “ Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest . 2014;146:1387-1394. ” Methods Comment: The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We have responded to each recommendation as below: 1. Adherence to JBI steps We clarified that our review followed all eight steps of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review without deviation. We revised the sentence as below: “This ScR was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, following all eight recommended steps without deviation.” 2. PRISMA-ScR checklist We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. In addition to noting in the Data Availability section that the completed PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided, we have now explicitly stated in the Methods section that the review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The following sentence was added: “This review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.” 3. Search update We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The final comprehensive search was conducted on March 29, 2024, as already noted in the Methods section. Given the publication model of F1000Research, the Version 1 preprint of this review was made publicly available shortly after submission, and thus the search reflects the literature available at that time. As the journal does not require an updated search for scoping reviews, we have not repeated the search. Nevertheless, we have noted in the Discussion that more recent studies may not have been captured. The following sentence was added: “A limitation of this review is that the literature search was last conducted in March 2024, and more recent studies may not have been capture.” 4. Use of ChatGPT-4o We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used during data extraction. These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs were reviewed and verified against the original studies by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. Thus, while AI was utilized as part of the data extraction process, no information was included without human verification, and all final decisions were made by the research team. The following sentence was added: “These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs generated by AI were reviewed and verified against the original sources by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy, and all final decisions were made by the research team.” 5. Data extraction software We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that no dedicated systematic review software such as Covidence was used for data extraction. Instead, data were extracted using Microsoft Excel, supported by ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM, with all outputs reviewed and verified by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. The following sentence was added: “No dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used for data extraction.” 6. Sample search strategy We thank the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. To ensure reproducibility, we have clarified in the Methods section that the full PubMed search strategy is provided as Supplementary Table S1. The sentence was revised as follow: “The text words found in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, along with the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a comprehensive search strategy across nine databases (the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Table S1).” Results Comment: The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To improve clarity, we have added the frequencies and percentages of studies that used the PSQI and ISI, and we now reference Figure 2 in the text. We revised the sentences as follow: “ The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (45 of 81 studies, 55.6%) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (21 of 81 studies, 25.9%) were the most commonly used tools for the assessment of sleep problems (Figure 2). ” Discussion Comment: The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured consistent use of the term “sleep disturbances” in the Discussion section. We have also added text to highlight how inadequate or inconsistent sleep assessment may influence the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. The following sentences were added: “Given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, inadequate or inconsistent assessment of sleep disturbances may obscure the true effects of intervention for chronic pain. This limitation could lead to underestimation or misinterpretation of treatment efficacy and reduce the comparability of results across studies. Addressing this issue is essential for developing effective multimodal interventions and advancing precision medicine.” Conclusions Comment: The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term content with characteristics in the Conclusions section to improve clarity as follows: “This ScR highlights the imbalance in the characteristics of sleep and pain assessments, indicating the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes.” Summary of Key Revisions We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. In response to the comments, we have made the following key revisions to the manuscript: Terminology : We ensured consistent use of the term sleep disturbances across the Introduction and Discussion, and provided standardized definitions with citations to the ICSD-3. Introduction : We added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Methods : Clarified adherence to all eight JBI steps. Explicitly stated adherence to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Explained that the final search was conducted in March 2024 and noted this as a limitation. Clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used to facilitate data extraction, and described human verification procedures. Stated that no dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Specified that the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Supplementary Table S1. Results : Added the frequencies and percentages of studies using the PSQI and ISI, with reference to Figure 2. Discussion : Ensured consistent terminology and added a statement on how inadequate sleep assessment may affect the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions : Replaced the term content with characteristics for improved clarity. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript to use the term “sleep disturbances” consistently when referring to general sleep-related dysfunction. In the Introduction, we also added a clarifying statement with references to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition (ICSD-3). Additionally, as recommended, we have added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. We have added the references as follow: “ Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Schmit KM, Guy GP Jr. Chronic pain among adults - United States, 2019-2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2023;72:379-385. ” “ Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest . 2014;146:1387-1394. ” Methods Comment: The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We have responded to each recommendation as below: 1. Adherence to JBI steps We clarified that our review followed all eight steps of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review without deviation. We revised the sentence as below: “This ScR was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, following all eight recommended steps without deviation.” 2. PRISMA-ScR checklist We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. In addition to noting in the Data Availability section that the completed PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided, we have now explicitly stated in the Methods section that the review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The following sentence was added: “This review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.” 3. Search update We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The final comprehensive search was conducted on March 29, 2024, as already noted in the Methods section. Given the publication model of F1000Research, the Version 1 preprint of this review was made publicly available shortly after submission, and thus the search reflects the literature available at that time. As the journal does not require an updated search for scoping reviews, we have not repeated the search. Nevertheless, we have noted in the Discussion that more recent studies may not have been captured. The following sentence was added: “A limitation of this review is that the literature search was last conducted in March 2024, and more recent studies may not have been capture.” 4. Use of ChatGPT-4o We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used during data extraction. These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs were reviewed and verified against the original studies by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. Thus, while AI was utilized as part of the data extraction process, no information was included without human verification, and all final decisions were made by the research team. The following sentence was added: “These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs generated by AI were reviewed and verified against the original sources by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy, and all final decisions were made by the research team.” 5. Data extraction software We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that no dedicated systematic review software such as Covidence was used for data extraction. Instead, data were extracted using Microsoft Excel, supported by ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM, with all outputs reviewed and verified by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. The following sentence was added: “No dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used for data extraction.” 6. Sample search strategy We thank the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. To ensure reproducibility, we have clarified in the Methods section that the full PubMed search strategy is provided as Supplementary Table S1. The sentence was revised as follow: “The text words found in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, along with the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a comprehensive search strategy across nine databases (the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Table S1).” Results Comment: The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To improve clarity, we have added the frequencies and percentages of studies that used the PSQI and ISI, and we now reference Figure 2 in the text. We revised the sentences as follow: “ The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (45 of 81 studies, 55.6%) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (21 of 81 studies, 25.9%) were the most commonly used tools for the assessment of sleep problems (Figure 2). ” Discussion Comment: The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured consistent use of the term “sleep disturbances” in the Discussion section. We have also added text to highlight how inadequate or inconsistent sleep assessment may influence the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. The following sentences were added: “Given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, inadequate or inconsistent assessment of sleep disturbances may obscure the true effects of intervention for chronic pain. This limitation could lead to underestimation or misinterpretation of treatment efficacy and reduce the comparability of results across studies. Addressing this issue is essential for developing effective multimodal interventions and advancing precision medicine.” Conclusions Comment: The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term content with characteristics in the Conclusions section to improve clarity as follows: “This ScR highlights the imbalance in the characteristics of sleep and pain assessments, indicating the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes.” Summary of Key Revisions We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. In response to the comments, we have made the following key revisions to the manuscript: Terminology : We ensured consistent use of the term sleep disturbances across the Introduction and Discussion, and provided standardized definitions with citations to the ICSD-3. Introduction : We added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Methods : Clarified adherence to all eight JBI steps. Explicitly stated adherence to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Explained that the final search was conducted in March 2024 and noted this as a limitation. Clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used to facilitate data extraction, and described human verification procedures. Stated that no dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Specified that the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Supplementary Table S1. Results : Added the frequencies and percentages of studies using the PSQI and ISI, with reference to Figure 2. Discussion : Ensured consistent terminology and added a statement on how inadequate sleep assessment may affect the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions : Replaced the term content with characteristics for improved clarity. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Sep 2025 Katsuyoshi Tanaka , Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan 23 Sep 2025 Author Response Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and ... Continue reading Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript to use the term “sleep disturbances” consistently when referring to general sleep-related dysfunction. In the Introduction, we also added a clarifying statement with references to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition (ICSD-3). Additionally, as recommended, we have added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. We have added the references as follow: “ Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Schmit KM, Guy GP Jr. Chronic pain among adults - United States, 2019-2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2023;72:379-385. ” “ Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest . 2014;146:1387-1394. ” Methods Comment: The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We have responded to each recommendation as below: 1. Adherence to JBI steps We clarified that our review followed all eight steps of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review without deviation. We revised the sentence as below: “This ScR was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, following all eight recommended steps without deviation.” 2. PRISMA-ScR checklist We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. In addition to noting in the Data Availability section that the completed PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided, we have now explicitly stated in the Methods section that the review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The following sentence was added: “This review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.” 3. Search update We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The final comprehensive search was conducted on March 29, 2024, as already noted in the Methods section. Given the publication model of F1000Research, the Version 1 preprint of this review was made publicly available shortly after submission, and thus the search reflects the literature available at that time. As the journal does not require an updated search for scoping reviews, we have not repeated the search. Nevertheless, we have noted in the Discussion that more recent studies may not have been captured. The following sentence was added: “A limitation of this review is that the literature search was last conducted in March 2024, and more recent studies may not have been capture.” 4. Use of ChatGPT-4o We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used during data extraction. These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs were reviewed and verified against the original studies by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. Thus, while AI was utilized as part of the data extraction process, no information was included without human verification, and all final decisions were made by the research team. The following sentence was added: “These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs generated by AI were reviewed and verified against the original sources by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy, and all final decisions were made by the research team.” 5. Data extraction software We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that no dedicated systematic review software such as Covidence was used for data extraction. Instead, data were extracted using Microsoft Excel, supported by ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM, with all outputs reviewed and verified by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. The following sentence was added: “No dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used for data extraction.” 6. Sample search strategy We thank the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. To ensure reproducibility, we have clarified in the Methods section that the full PubMed search strategy is provided as Supplementary Table S1. The sentence was revised as follow: “The text words found in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, along with the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a comprehensive search strategy across nine databases (the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Table S1).” Results Comment: The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To improve clarity, we have added the frequencies and percentages of studies that used the PSQI and ISI, and we now reference Figure 2 in the text. We revised the sentences as follow: “ The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (45 of 81 studies, 55.6%) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (21 of 81 studies, 25.9%) were the most commonly used tools for the assessment of sleep problems (Figure 2). ” Discussion Comment: The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured consistent use of the term “sleep disturbances” in the Discussion section. We have also added text to highlight how inadequate or inconsistent sleep assessment may influence the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. The following sentences were added: “Given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, inadequate or inconsistent assessment of sleep disturbances may obscure the true effects of intervention for chronic pain. This limitation could lead to underestimation or misinterpretation of treatment efficacy and reduce the comparability of results across studies. Addressing this issue is essential for developing effective multimodal interventions and advancing precision medicine.” Conclusions Comment: The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term content with characteristics in the Conclusions section to improve clarity as follows: “This ScR highlights the imbalance in the characteristics of sleep and pain assessments, indicating the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes.” Summary of Key Revisions We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. In response to the comments, we have made the following key revisions to the manuscript: Terminology : We ensured consistent use of the term sleep disturbances across the Introduction and Discussion, and provided standardized definitions with citations to the ICSD-3. Introduction : We added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Methods : Clarified adherence to all eight JBI steps. Explicitly stated adherence to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Explained that the final search was conducted in March 2024 and noted this as a limitation. Clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used to facilitate data extraction, and described human verification procedures. Stated that no dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Specified that the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Supplementary Table S1. Results : Added the frequencies and percentages of studies using the PSQI and ISI, with reference to Figure 2. Discussion : Ensured consistent terminology and added a statement on how inadequate sleep assessment may affect the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions : Replaced the term content with characteristics for improved clarity. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript to use the term “sleep disturbances” consistently when referring to general sleep-related dysfunction. In the Introduction, we also added a clarifying statement with references to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition (ICSD-3). Additionally, as recommended, we have added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. We have added the references as follow: “ Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Schmit KM, Guy GP Jr. Chronic pain among adults - United States, 2019-2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2023;72:379-385. ” “ Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest . 2014;146:1387-1394. ” Methods Comment: The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We have responded to each recommendation as below: 1. Adherence to JBI steps We clarified that our review followed all eight steps of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review without deviation. We revised the sentence as below: “This ScR was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, following all eight recommended steps without deviation.” 2. PRISMA-ScR checklist We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. In addition to noting in the Data Availability section that the completed PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided, we have now explicitly stated in the Methods section that the review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The following sentence was added: “This review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.” 3. Search update We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The final comprehensive search was conducted on March 29, 2024, as already noted in the Methods section. Given the publication model of F1000Research, the Version 1 preprint of this review was made publicly available shortly after submission, and thus the search reflects the literature available at that time. As the journal does not require an updated search for scoping reviews, we have not repeated the search. Nevertheless, we have noted in the Discussion that more recent studies may not have been captured. The following sentence was added: “A limitation of this review is that the literature search was last conducted in March 2024, and more recent studies may not have been capture.” 4. Use of ChatGPT-4o We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used during data extraction. These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs were reviewed and verified against the original studies by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. Thus, while AI was utilized as part of the data extraction process, no information was included without human verification, and all final decisions were made by the research team. The following sentence was added: “These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs generated by AI were reviewed and verified against the original sources by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy, and all final decisions were made by the research team.” 5. Data extraction software We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that no dedicated systematic review software such as Covidence was used for data extraction. Instead, data were extracted using Microsoft Excel, supported by ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM, with all outputs reviewed and verified by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. The following sentence was added: “No dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used for data extraction.” 6. Sample search strategy We thank the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. To ensure reproducibility, we have clarified in the Methods section that the full PubMed search strategy is provided as Supplementary Table S1. The sentence was revised as follow: “The text words found in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, along with the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a comprehensive search strategy across nine databases (the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Table S1).” Results Comment: The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To improve clarity, we have added the frequencies and percentages of studies that used the PSQI and ISI, and we now reference Figure 2 in the text. We revised the sentences as follow: “ The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (45 of 81 studies, 55.6%) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (21 of 81 studies, 25.9%) were the most commonly used tools for the assessment of sleep problems (Figure 2). ” Discussion Comment: The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured consistent use of the term “sleep disturbances” in the Discussion section. We have also added text to highlight how inadequate or inconsistent sleep assessment may influence the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. The following sentences were added: “Given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, inadequate or inconsistent assessment of sleep disturbances may obscure the true effects of intervention for chronic pain. This limitation could lead to underestimation or misinterpretation of treatment efficacy and reduce the comparability of results across studies. Addressing this issue is essential for developing effective multimodal interventions and advancing precision medicine.” Conclusions Comment: The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term content with characteristics in the Conclusions section to improve clarity as follows: “This ScR highlights the imbalance in the characteristics of sleep and pain assessments, indicating the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes.” Summary of Key Revisions We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. In response to the comments, we have made the following key revisions to the manuscript: Terminology : We ensured consistent use of the term sleep disturbances across the Introduction and Discussion, and provided standardized definitions with citations to the ICSD-3. Introduction : We added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Methods : Clarified adherence to all eight JBI steps. Explicitly stated adherence to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Explained that the final search was conducted in March 2024 and noted this as a limitation. Clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used to facilitate data extraction, and described human verification procedures. Stated that no dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Specified that the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Supplementary Table S1. Results : Added the frequencies and percentages of studies using the PSQI and ISI, with reference to Figure 2. Discussion : Ensured consistent terminology and added a statement on how inadequate sleep assessment may affect the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions : Replaced the term content with characteristics for improved clarity. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 20 Jun 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 3 (revision) 12 Dec 25 read read Version 2 (revision) 15 Sep 25 read Version 1 20 Jun 25 read Brett D Neilson , Hawai'i Pacific University, Hawaii, USA Yuri Chaves Martins , Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, USA Peyton Murin , Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, USA; Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Martins Y et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 3 Yuri Chaves Martins , Anesthesiology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA Peyton Murin , Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Martins Y et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Response to Yuri Chaves Martins and Peyton J. Murin We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” 2 nd review: The change in wording improved the flow of the introduction. Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers.” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends.” 2 nd Review: The above changes increased reproducibility of the methodology. These changes sufficiently addressed our concerns. Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” 2 nd Review: This is sufficiently addressed Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. 2 nd Review: The addition of section 3.4 adds important context to the manuscript. Our concerns are sufficiently addressed here. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” 2 nd Review: We appreciate the addition of a mechanistic discussion of the b-directional. While it would be possible to have more depth, in the context of this manuscript, the above description sufficiently describes the underlying pathophysiology. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. Overall 2 nd Review: The authors have sufficiently addressed our concerns regarding the methodology, description of the results, and the depth of the discussion. We believe the manuscript is now suitable for Indexing. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sleep medicine, chronic pain, anesthesiology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Martins YC and Murin P. Peer Review Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r440945) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3#referee-response-440945 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Neilson B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 3 Brett D Neilson , Hawai'i Pacific University, Hawaii, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Neilson B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you to the authors for addressing my prior concerns and recommendations. No further feedback is required at this stage. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Physical therapy researcher whose scholarly agenda is focused on the intersection of sleep and pain. I believe I am well qualified to review and approve this manuscript. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Neilson BD. Peer Review Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192814.r414411) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3#referee-response-414411 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Martins Y et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 06 Nov 2025 | for Version 2 Yuri Chaves Martins , Anesthesiology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA Peyton Murin , Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Neurology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine (Ringgold ID: 12274), St. Louis, Missouri, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Martins Y et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors provide a systematic review looking at the relationship between sleep and chronic pain. The study follows JBI guidance, is OSF-registered, adheres to PRISMA-ScR, and synthesizes 81 studies from a multi-database search (finalized March 29, 2024). They use a robust AI assisted approach to identify articles meeting all screening, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. They find significant heterogeneity in measures for both pain and sleep disorders, highlighting a need for more consistency in study design/approach, a well-documented problem within chronic pain. Introduction: The authors summarize the background transitioning from chronic pain to sleep disorders. Identify the high prevalence of sleep disorders and chronic pain. Address the relationship between sleep and other comorbidities including pain and identify a gap in the literature. Minor: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Methods: Approach is appropriate. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are appropriate. Use of AI is appropriate and documented. You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Results: 3.1 : No concerns 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Discussion: The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sleep medicine, chronic pain, anesthesiology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Dec 2025 Katsuyoshi Tanaka, Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan Response to Yuri Chaves Martins We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The transition between pain to chronic pain could be smoother. Would recommend rewording to allow for better flow/cohesion. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. To improve the logical flow from pain to chronic pain, we have revised the beginning of the Introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence to clarify the conceptual transition from pain as a protective mechanism to chronic pain as a pathological condition. The following text was added: “Pain is a fundamental human experience that functions as a protective mechanism, however, when it persists beyond the expected period of tissue healing, it is regarded as a pathological condition known as chronic pain.” Methods Comment: You transparently describe using ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM with human verification. To enhance reproducibility, please (i) provide the exact extraction template (e.g., the Excel column headings) in the OSF repository and (ii) add one or two concrete examples of verification checks you performed (e.g., double-checking instrument counts against full texts). The search was last run on March 29, 2024. You acknowledge that newer studies may be missing (page 7). Given the rapid growth in wearable-based sleep assessments, a short sensitivity statement (e.g., how many additional records a quick 2024–2025 update might add based on pilot scoping) would contextualize recency without requiring a full rerun. Responses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments. (i) To improve transparence and reproducibility, we have updated the Excel data extraction template (showing the column headings used for data collection) to our Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The revised Methods section has showed the major data fields extracted (eg., author country, study design, and tools used for sleep and pain assessment). The following sentence was added: “To enhance reproducibility, the exact data extraction template has been made publicly available in the Open Science Framework repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5JK63 ). The column headings include, for example, “Title”, “Author”, “Year of publication”, “Country”, “Study design”, “Diagnosis/Conditions”, “Sample size”, “Age”, “Sleep assessment tool”, and “Assessment tools of pain-related factor”.” (ii) We have also added specific examples of verification procedures used during data validation. These included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods section. The following sentence was added: “Verification checks included double-checking the counts of sleep and pain assessment tools extracted by AI against both the full-text tables and textual descriptions, and cross-referencing the extracted sample characteristics with the methods sections of the original papers. ” (iii) To contextualize the recency of our research, we performed an updated PubMed search using the same search strategy as in the original review, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This updated search identified 131 new records, reflecting a moderate increase in studies related to wearable-based sleep assessments. We have added a corresponding sensitivity statement to the Methods section, clarifying that the findings of the present review remain broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies. The following sentences were added: “The literature search was last conducted on March 29, 2024. To contextualize the recency of the review, an updated search was performed in PubMed using the same search strategy, limited to publications from 2024 to 2025, on November 7, 2025. This additional search identified 131 new records. Although this increase indicates an ongoing rise in research activity, particularly in wearable-based sleep assessments, the number of new studies remains modest relative to the total volume of literature included in the present review. Therefore, the findings of this review are considered broadly representative of the current evidence base, while future updates should incorporate these recent studies to capture emerging trends. ” Results Comment: 3.2: Would recommend including more robust analysis on the gender distribution, age, pain type. Would recommend adding a table to summarize this data. Response : Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we strengthened the description of participant characteristics by providing an aggregated summary of age distribution, sex distribution, and pain diagnoses in the main text. The following sentence was added: “To provide an overview of demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations, Table 1 summarizes the participant characteristics across the included studies, while detailed study-level information is available in Supplementary Table S2.” Comment: 3.3: While this is not a meta-analysis (and as such, there is not a need for formal analysis), it would strengthen the results to have a summary of findings in the studies (i.e. did pain scores and sleep scores correlate)? In addition, for pain outcomes, you note the predominance of NRS/VAS and BPI. Consider adding a summary matrix (main text or supplement) mapping pain domains (intensity, interference/disability, psychosocial, sensitization, QST) to the instruments encountered, indicating frequencies (some of this is described narratively on page 6) Response : Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a summary of the associations and a structured mapping of assessment tools significantly strengthens the manuscript. Regarding the summary of findings, we have added a new section in the Results (3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes) to narratively describe the trends identified in the included studies. We reported that while patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated positive correlations between sleep and pain, objective measures showed distinct patterns: movement-based assessments (e.g., actigraphy) often lacked clear associations, whereas physiological measures (e.g., EEG) tended to correlate with pain outcomes. We have also added an interpretation of this discrepance to the Discussion section. The following sentences was added: “3.4 Association between sleep and pain outcomes Although a meta-analysis was not conducted, a narrative summary of the included studies reveals distinct patterns in the relationship between sleep and pain. Studies relying on patient-reported outcomes consistently demonstrated a significant positive correlation, where higher score on sleep questionnaires (e.g., PSQI, ISI) were associated with greater pain intensity or interference. In contrast, findings from objective assessments varied depending on the measurement modality. Studies utilizing movement-based devises, such as actigraphy, generally did not show a clear association with pain intensity or other pain-related outcomes. However, objective measures based on physiological parameters, such as heart rate or electroencephalography (EEG), tended to exhibit significant associations with pain outcomes.” “Furthermore, our review identified a discrepancy in the results derived from different objective modalities. While movement-based assessment (e.g., actigraphy) often failed to correlate with pain, physiological measures (e.g., EEG, heart rate) consistently showed significant associations. This suggests that while pain may not always disrupt gross body movements during sleep, it likely impacts physiological sleep architecture and autonomic regulation.” Regarding the summary matrix, we have created a new table (Table 2) that maps the identified assessment tools to specific pain domains: Pain Intensity, Interference/Disability, Pain Quality, Psychosocial Factors, and Quantitative Sensory Testing. As suggested, this table presents the frequencies of use for each instrument within these domains. Please note that the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was categorized into both “Pain Intensity” and “Interference” domains, as it assesses both severity and impact on daily function. Discussion Comment : The authors do well to highlight the heterogeneity in approach and the need for more standardized study design combining objective and subjective measures. However, I would like to see more discussion of what we do know about the relationship between sleep and pain [Reference 1], the potential impact of sleep deprivation on pain scores (PMID: 36334461) and hypothesize on mechanisms that may link the disorders [Reference 2]. References 1. Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, et al.: Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology . 2020; 45 (1): 205-216 Publisher Full Text 2. Chang J, Fu S, Li X, Li S, et al.: The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews . 2022; 66 . Publisher Full Text Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that elaborating on the established relationship and underlying mechanisms provides crucial context for our findings. We have revised the Discussion section to incorporate the suggested references. Specifically, we have expanded the paragraph discussing the sleep-pain interaction to explicitly address: The bidirectional nature of the relationship (Finan et al., 2013) Experimental evidence showing that sleep deprivation significantly increases pain sensitivity (Chang et al., 2022) Hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms, such as central sensitization and impaired descending pain inhibition (Haack et al., 2020; Nijs et al., 2018) In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the reference list. The following sentences and references were added: “Current evidence emphasizes a strong bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, with sleep disturbances often predicting future pain severity more robustly than pain predicts sleep problems. 6 Experimental studies have further demonstrated that sleep deprivation directly exacerbates pain perception, lowering pain thresholds and increasing hyperalgesia 121 (new ref). These interactions are hypothesized to be mediated by shared neurobiological mechanisms, particularly central sensitization and impairments in descending pain inhibitory pathways, which nociceptive signaling. 122,123 Incorporating objective sleep assessments and multidimensional pain measures into research and practice will enhance the quality of evidence and support the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual patient needs.” “121 Chang JR, Fu SN, Li X, et al. The differential effects of sleep deprivation on pain perception in individuals with or without chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev . 2022;66:101695. 36334461 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101695” “123 Nijs J, Mairesse O, Neu D, et al.: Sleep Disturbances in Chronic Pain: Neurobiology, Assessment, and Treatment in Physical Therapist Practice. Phys. Ther. 2018;98:325–335. 29425327 10.1093/ptj/pzy020” These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Martins YC and Murin P. Peer Review Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188083.r421813) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v2#referee-response-421813 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Neilson B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Brett D Neilson , Hawai'i Pacific University, Hawaii, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Neilson B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions General Comments This is a well-organized and clearly written scoping review (ScR) that addresses an important topic: the methods used to assess sleep and pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. The authors articulate a clear aim, follow a structured methodology, and present their findings with clarity. The manuscript would benefit from some clarifications and adjustments, particularly regarding terminology, methodological rigor, and reporting of results. Abstract The abstract is clear and concisely conveys the purpose and scope of the review. The aim is well articulated. No major revisions are needed for the abstract. Introduction The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Methods The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Results The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Discussion The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Summary of Key Revisions for Authors Ensure consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related dysfunction. Add citation(s) to support claims regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Clarify adherence to JBI methodology and consider referencing PRISMA-ScR. Provide detail on how ChatGPT-4o was used and how its outputs were validated. Include numerical data or clear reference to figures for key result statements. Explore how measurement inconsistencies could impact intervention outcomes. Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Acknowledge that the PRISMA-ScR checklist was used, as mentioned in the Data Availability section. Consider integrating this earlier in the Methods to emphasize adherence to reporting standards. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise I am a physical therapist educator in the Hawai‘i Pacific University Doctor of Physical Therapy Program. My research focuses on the intersection of sleep and pain, with several publications in this area. I have previously published two ScRs on a similar topic: Feda J, Miller T, Young JL, Neilson B, Rhon DI. Measures of sleep are not routinely captured in trials assessing treatment outcomes in knee osteoarthritis - A scoping systematic review and call to action. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 2023;(100400):100400. Neilson BD, Dickerson C, Young JL, Shepherd MH, Rhon DI. Measures of sleep disturbance are not routinely captured in trials for chronic low back pain: a systematic scoping review of 282 trials. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(11):1961–1970. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Sep 2025 Katsuyoshi Tanaka, Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, 604-8418, Japan Response to Brett D Neilson We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. Our responses to your comments are given below. Introduction Comment: The introduction is generally well written and provides appropriate context for the review. However, the use of inconsistent terminology for sleep-related issues may create confusion for the reader. Recommendations: Consider defining or consistently using terms such as “sleep problems,” “sleep disorders,” “compromised sleep,” and “sleep disturbances.” Reference standardized definitions or diagnostic criteria where appropriate. The statement: “The financial impact of chronic pain, including healthcare expenses and reduced work efficiency, is substantial.” should be supported with a citation. There is robust literature available on this topic. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript to use the term “sleep disturbances” consistently when referring to general sleep-related dysfunction. In the Introduction, we also added a clarifying statement with references to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition (ICSD-3). Additionally, as recommended, we have added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. We have added the references as follow: “ Rikard SM, Strahan AE, Schmit KM, Guy GP Jr. Chronic pain among adults - United States, 2019-2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2023;72:379-385. ” “ Sateia MJ. International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications. Chest . 2014;146:1387-1394. ” Methods Comment: The methodology appears rigorous, with an extensive search strategy across nine databases and inclusion of grey literature. However, a few clarifications and enhancements are suggested. Recommendations: Clarify adherence to all eight JBI steps, or note deviations. Consider referencing the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Search was completed in March 2024; consider updating if required by the journal. Describe how ChatGPT-4o outputs were validated to ensure data accuracy. Mention if data extraction software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Include a sample search strategy for at least one database to enhance reproducibility of the review process. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We have responded to each recommendation as below: 1. Adherence to JBI steps We clarified that our review followed all eight steps of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review without deviation. We revised the sentence as below: “This ScR was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, following all eight recommended steps without deviation.” 2. PRISMA-ScR checklist We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. In addition to noting in the Data Availability section that the completed PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided, we have now explicitly stated in the Methods section that the review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The following sentence was added: “This review also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.” 3. Search update We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The final comprehensive search was conducted on March 29, 2024, as already noted in the Methods section. Given the publication model of F1000Research, the Version 1 preprint of this review was made publicly available shortly after submission, and thus the search reflects the literature available at that time. As the journal does not require an updated search for scoping reviews, we have not repeated the search. Nevertheless, we have noted in the Discussion that more recent studies may not have been captured. The following sentence was added: “A limitation of this review is that the literature search was last conducted in March 2024, and more recent studies may not have been capture.” 4. Use of ChatGPT-4o We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used during data extraction. These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs were reviewed and verified against the original studies by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. Thus, while AI was utilized as part of the data extraction process, no information was included without human verification, and all final decisions were made by the research team. The following sentence was added: “These AI tools were used to facilitate the extraction and preliminary organization of information from the included studies. All outputs generated by AI were reviewed and verified against the original sources by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy, and all final decisions were made by the research team.” 5. Data extraction software We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that no dedicated systematic review software such as Covidence was used for data extraction. Instead, data were extracted using Microsoft Excel, supported by ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM, with all outputs reviewed and verified by the first author (K.T.) to ensure accuracy. The following sentence was added: “No dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used for data extraction.” 6. Sample search strategy We thank the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. To ensure reproducibility, we have clarified in the Methods section that the full PubMed search strategy is provided as Supplementary Table S1. The sentence was revised as follow: “The text words found in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, along with the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a comprehensive search strategy across nine databases (the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Table S1).” Results Comment: The results are clearly reported, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Recommendation: Provide percentages or refer to Figure 2 when discussing the use of PSQI and ISI. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To improve clarity, we have added the frequencies and percentages of studies that used the PSQI and ISI, and we now reference Figure 2 in the text. We revised the sentences as follow: “ The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (45 of 81 studies, 55.6%) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) (21 of 81 studies, 25.9%) were the most commonly used tools for the assessment of sleep problems (Figure 2). ” Discussion Comment: The discussion section is well constructed and effectively summarizes the key findings of the review. Recommendations: Use consistent and defined terminology for sleep-related terms. Discuss how inadequate sleep assessment may affect intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Responses: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured consistent use of the term “sleep disturbances” in the Discussion section. We have also added text to highlight how inadequate or inconsistent sleep assessment may influence the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. The following sentences were added: “Given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain, inadequate or inconsistent assessment of sleep disturbances may obscure the true effects of intervention for chronic pain. This limitation could lead to underestimation or misinterpretation of treatment efficacy and reduce the comparability of results across studies. Addressing this issue is essential for developing effective multimodal interventions and advancing precision medicine.” Conclusions Comment: The conclusions are appropriate and do not overreach. Recommendation: Replace the term “content” with “characteristics” or “types” where appropriate. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term content with characteristics in the Conclusions section to improve clarity as follows: “This ScR highlights the imbalance in the characteristics of sleep and pain assessments, indicating the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of sleep disturbances and pain-related outcomes.” Summary of Key Revisions We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback. In response to the comments, we have made the following key revisions to the manuscript: Terminology : We ensured consistent use of the term sleep disturbances across the Introduction and Discussion, and provided standardized definitions with citations to the ICSD-3. Introduction : We added a citation to support the statement regarding the financial impact of chronic pain. Methods : Clarified adherence to all eight JBI steps. Explicitly stated adherence to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Explained that the final search was conducted in March 2024 and noted this as a limitation. Clarified how ChatGPT-4o and NotebookLM were used to facilitate data extraction, and described human verification procedures. Stated that no dedicated systematic review software (e.g., Covidence) was used. Specified that the complete PubMed search strategy is provided in Supplementary Table S1. Results : Added the frequencies and percentages of studies using the PSQI and ISI, with reference to Figure 2. Discussion : Ensured consistent terminology and added a statement on how inadequate sleep assessment may affect the interpretation of intervention outcomes, given the bidirectional relationship between sleep and pain. Conclusions : Replaced the term content with characteristics for improved clarity. These revisions improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and interpretability of our review. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Neilson BD. Peer Review Report For: Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :605 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182981.r399708) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v1#referee-response-399708 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Tanaka K et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605", templates : { twitter : "Imbalances in the Content of Sleep and Pain Assessments in Patients.... Tanaka K et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-605/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/166110/192814") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "192814"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "401670": 0, "401671": 0, "401678": 0, "401679": 0, "401676": 0, "401677": 0, "401674": 0, "401675": 0, "401672": 0, "401673": 0, "415518": 0, "415519": 0, "415516": 0, "415517": 0, "415514": 0, "415515": 0, "415512": 0, "415513": 0, "415520": 0, "415521": 0, "397902": 0, "396110": 0, "397903": 0, "396111": 0, "397900": 0, "396108": 0, "397901": 0, "396109": 0, "397898": 0, "396106": 0, "397899": 0, "396107": 0, "396104": 0, "396105": 0, "442455": 0, "397906": 0, "397907": 0, "397904": 0, "396112": 0, "397905": 0, "396113": 0, "399710": 0, "442462": 0, "399711": 0, "442463": 0, "399708": 19, "442460": 0, "399709": 0, "442461": 0, "399706": 0, "442458": 0, "399707": 0, "442459": 0, "442456": 0, "399705": 0, "442457": 0, "404070": 0, "404071": 0, "404068": 0, "404069": 0, "399714": 0, "404067": 0, "399712": 0, "399713": 0, "442465": 0, "404076": 0, "404074": 0, "404075": 0, "404072": 0, "404073": 0, "440946": 0, "440945": 6, "394111": 0, "394118": 0, "394119": 0, "394116": 0, "394117": 0, "394114": 0, "394115": 0, "394112": 0, "394113": 0, "394120": 0, "409492": 0, "409493": 0, "409490": 0, "409491": 0, "409489": 0, "435623": 0, "435626": 0, "435627": 0, "435624": 0, "435625": 0, "421814": 0, "421815": 0, "421812": 0, "421813": 17, "421810": 0, "421811": 0, "421808": 0, "421809": 0, "433086": 0, "433087": 0, "421816": 0, "421817": 0, "433094": 0, "433095": 0, "433092": 0, "433093": 0, "433090": 0, "433091": 0, "433088": 0, "433089": 0, "418764": 0, "418765": 0, "418762": 0, "414411": 2, "418763": 0, "433096": 0, "418761": 0, "418806": 0, "418807": 0, "418804": 0, "418805": 0, "418808": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "5ccf66cb-f894-4198-8872-3eaef30878d1"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });