Insomnia nosology: a systematic review and critical appraisal of historical diagnostic categories and current phenotypes

Abstract

Insomnia nosology has significantly evolved since the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-III-R first distinguished between 'primary' and 'secondary' insomnia. Prior International Classification of Sleep Disorders (ICSD) nosology 'split' diagnostic phenotypes to address insomnia's heterogeneity and the DSM nosology 'lumped' them into primary insomnia, while both systems assumed causality for insomnia secondary to health conditions. In this systematic review, we discuss the historical phenotypes in prior insomnia nosology, present findings for currently proposed insomnia phenotypes based on more robust approaches, and critically appraise the most relevant ones. Electronic databases PsychINFO, PubMED, Web of Science, and references of eligible articles, were accessed to find diagnostic manuals, literature on insomnia phenotypes, including systematic reviews or meta-analysis, and assessments of the reliability or validity of insomnia diagnoses, identifying 184 articles. The data show that previous insomnia diagnoses lacked reliability and validity, leading current DSM-5-TR and ICSD-3 nosology to 'lump' phenotypes into a single diagnosis comorbid with health conditions. However, at least two new, robust insomnia phenotyping approaches were identified. One approach is multidimensional-multimethod and provides evidence for self-reported insomnia with objective short versus normal sleep duration linked to clinically relevant outcomes, while the other is multidimensional and provides evidence for two to five clusters (phenotypes) based on self-reported trait, state, and/or life-history data. Some approaches still need replication to better support whether their findings identify true phenotypes or simply different patterns of symptomatology. Regardless, these phenotyping efforts aim at improving insomnia nosology both as a classification system and as a mechanism to guide treatment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.