SciCombinator

Discover the most talked about and latest scientific content & concepts.

DT Saunders, CA Roe, G Smith and H Clegg
Abstract
We report a quality effects meta-analysis on studies from the period 1966-2016 measuring either (a) lucid dreaming prevalence (one or more lucid dreams in a lifetime); (b) frequent lucid dreaming (one or more lucid dreams in a month) or both. A quality effects meta-analysis allows for the minimisation of the influence of study methodological quality on overall model estimates. Following sensitivity analysis, a heterogeneous lucid dreaming prevalence data set of 34 studies yielded a mean estimate of 55%, 95% C. I. [49%, 62%] for which moderator analysis showed no systematic bias for suspected sources of variability. A heterogeneous lucid dreaming frequency data set of 25 studies yielded a mean estimate of 23%, 95% C. I. [20%, 25%], moderator analysis revealed no suspected sources of variability. These findings are consistent with earlier estimates of lucid dreaming prevalence and frequent lucid dreaming in the population but are based on more robust evidence.
Tweets*
22
Facebook likes*
0
Reddit*
0
News coverage*
21
Blogs*
5
SC clicks
0
Concepts
Sensitivity analysis, Dream, A Lifetime, Scientific method, Epidemiology, Dreaming, Medical statistics, Statistics
MeSH headings
-
comments powered by Disqus

* Data courtesy of Altmetric.com