Lucid dreaming incidence: A quality effects meta-analysis of 50 years of research

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.

In the evidence

This study is part of the evidence base for a synthesis in the library. Here is how each one recorded it.

• State of the evidence: Lucid dreaming ↑Supports

  Lifetime lucid dreaming prevalence was estimated at 55% (95% CI 49-62%) and frequent monthly lucid dreaming at 23% (95% CI 20-25%) across 50 years of research.

  Synthesized September 20, 2026

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on lucid dreaming, most cited first.