Field-based Measurement of Sleep: Agreement between Six Commercial Activity Monitors and a Validated Accelerometer.

Autor: Kubala AG; Department of Health and Physical Activity, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Barone Gibbs B; Department of Health and Physical Activity, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Buysse DJ; Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Patel SR; Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Hall MH; Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Kline CE; Department of Health and Physical Activity, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Behavioral sleep medicine [Behav Sleep Med] 2020 Sep-Oct; Vol. 18 (5), pp. 637-652. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Aug 27.
DOI: 10.1080/15402002.2019.1651316
Abstrakt: Objective: To examine agreement between multiple commercial activity monitors (CAMs) and a validated actigraph to measure sleep.
Methods: Thirty adults without sleep disorders wore an Actiwatch Spectrum (AW) and alternated wearing 6 CAMs for one 24-h period each (Fitbit Alta, Jawbone Up3, Misfit Shine 2, Polar A360, Samsung Gear Fit2, Xiaomi Mi Band 2). Total sleep time (TST) and wake after sleep onset (WASO) were compared between edited AW and unedited CAM outputs. Comparisons between AW and CAM data were made via paired t-tests, mean absolute percent error (MAPE) calculations, and intra-class correlations (ICC). Intra-model reliability was performed in 10 participants who wore a pair of each AW and CAM model.
Results: Fitbit, Jawbone, Misfit, and Xiaomi overestimated TST relative to AW (53.7-80.4 min, P ≤ .001). WASO was underestimated by Fitbit, Misfit, Samsung and Xiaomi devices (15.0-27.9 min; P ≤ .004) and overestimated by Polar (27.7 min, P ≤ .001). MAPEs ranged from 5.1% (Samsung) to 25.4% (Misfit) for TST and from 36.6% (Fitbit) to 165.1% (Polar) for WASO. TST ICCs ranged from .00 (Polar) to .92 (Samsung), while WASO ICCs ranged from .38 (Misfit) to .69 (Samsung). Differences were similar between poor sleepers (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index global score >5; n = 10) and good sleepers. Intra-model reliability analyses revealed minimal between-pair differences and high ICCs.
Conclusions: Agreement between CAMs and AW varied by device, with greater agreement observed for TST than WASO. While reliable, variability in agreement across CAMs with traditional actigraphy may complicate the interpretation of CAM data obtained for clinical or research purposes.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje