OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of valerian for the management of chronic insomnia in general practice. DESIGN:Valerian versus placebo in a series of n-of-1 trials, in Queensland, Australia. RESULTS: Of 42 enrolled patients, 24 (57%) had sufficient data for inclusion into the n-of-1 analysis. Response to valerian was fair for 23 (96%) participants evaluating their "energy level in the previous day" but poor or modest for all 24 (100%) participants' response to "total sleep time" and for 23 (96%) participants' response to "number of night awakenings" and "morning refreshment". As a group, the proportion of treatment successes ranged from 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47) to 0.55 (95% CI 0.43, 0.67) for the six elicited outcome sleep variables. There was no significant difference in the number (P=0.06), distribution (P=1.00) or severity (P=0.46) of side effects between valerian and placebo treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Valerian was not shown to be appreciably better than placebo in promoting sleep or sleep-related factors for any individual patient or for all patients as a group.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of valerian for the management of chronic insomnia in general practice. DESIGN:Valerian versus placebo in a series of n-of-1 trials, in Queensland, Australia. RESULTS: Of 42 enrolled patients, 24 (57%) had sufficient data for inclusion into the n-of-1 analysis. Response to valerian was fair for 23 (96%) participants evaluating their "energy level in the previous day" but poor or modest for all 24 (100%) participants' response to "total sleep time" and for 23 (96%) participants' response to "number of night awakenings" and "morning refreshment". As a group, the proportion of treatment successes ranged from 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47) to 0.55 (95% CI 0.43, 0.67) for the six elicited outcome sleep variables. There was no significant difference in the number (P=0.06), distribution (P=1.00) or severity (P=0.46) of side effects between valerian and placebo treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Valerian was not shown to be appreciably better than placebo in promoting sleep or sleep-related factors for any individual patient or for all patients as a group.
Authors: Elizabeth O Lillie; Bradley Patay; Joel Diamant; Brian Issell; Eric J Topol; Nicholas J Schork Journal: Per Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Diana M Taibi; Michael V Vitiello; Suzanne Barsness; Gary W Elmer; Gail D Anderson; Carol A Landis Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Anke C M Wegman; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Wim A B Stalman; Theo P G M de Vries Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2006-09-19 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Andrew D Oxman; Signe Flottorp; Kari Håvelsrud; Atle Fretheim; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Cheryl Carling; Ståle Pallesen; Bjørn Bjorvatn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240