Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Sleep

5-HTPand Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The numbers reported

No number has been put on this yet. One source recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Randomised trial, 2024

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    The impact of 5-hydroxytryptophan supplementation on sleep quality and gut microbiota composition in older adults: A randomized controlled trial.

    Clin Nutr. 2024;43(3):593-602. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2024.01.010. PMID:38309227.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no interpretable magnitude: the abstract prints the poor-sleeper figure as 'ΔSL5-HTP: -2.80 ± 1.10 min', a minutes unit that cannot be a PSQI global sleep score
    Who was studied
    Older adult poor sleeper
    Compared with
    no supplement (single-blinded parallel control)
    Amount taken
    100 mg/d
    For how long
    84 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • No number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • One do not say how many people took part.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for 5-HTP

Five of the 15 things on our list for 5-HTP have no reading here yet:

  • Cognitive performance
  • Migraine frequency
  • Migraine intensity
  • Salivary cortisol
  • Sleep quality (subjective)

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

  • 5-HTP

    Nine other questions read for it

  • Sleep

    28 questions read under it

  • Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)

    One other ingredient read against it

    Alphabetical, and by nothing else.

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.