STUDY OBJECTIVE: The lack of quantitative criteria for identifying insomnia using actigraphy represents an unresolved limit for the use of actigraphy in a clinical setting. The current study was conducted to evaluate the most efficient actigraphic parameter in the assessment of insomnia and to suggest preliminary quantitative actigraphic criteria (QAC). PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Performing a retrospective study we recovered 408 actigraphic records from 3 sleep measure databases: 2 regarding insomnia patients (n = 126) and one normal sleepers (n = 282). We compared the 2 samples analyzing the following actigraphic sleep parameters: time in bed (TIB), sleep onset latency (SOL), total sleep time (TST), wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency percentage (SE%), number of awakenings longer than 5 minutes (NA > 5) and mean motor activity (MA). Moreover, a linear discriminant function (LDF) was developed to identify and combine the most useful actigraphic sleep parameters to separate insomnia patients from normal sleepers. Using Youden index we calculated the preliminary QAC for each actigraphic sleep parameter and for LDF. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for classifying the accuracy of QAC were performed. RESULTS: All sleep parameters recorded by actigraphy significantly differentiated the 2 groups, except TIB. An LDF analysis showed that the most useful combination of actigraphic sleep parameters to assess insomnia was TST, SOL, and NA > 5, which obtained the best ROC and the best balance between positive and negative predictive values compared to any single actigraphic parameter. CONCLUSION: Actigraphy provided a satisfactory objective measurement of sleep quality in insomnia patients. The combination of TST, SOL, and NA > 5 proved the best way to assess insomnia using actigraphy. Acknowledging that the lack of a technological standard and some methodological limitations prevent us generalizing our results, we recommend additional studies on larger populations using different actigraph models.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The lack of quantitative criteria for identifying insomnia using actigraphy represents an unresolved limit for the use of actigraphy in a clinical setting. The current study was conducted to evaluate the most efficient actigraphic parameter in the assessment of insomnia and to suggest preliminary quantitative actigraphic criteria (QAC). PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Performing a retrospective study we recovered 408 actigraphic records from 3 sleep measure databases: 2 regarding insomniapatients (n = 126) and one normal sleepers (n = 282). We compared the 2 samples analyzing the following actigraphic sleep parameters: time in bed (TIB), sleep onset latency (SOL), total sleep time (TST), wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency percentage (SE%), number of awakenings longer than 5 minutes (NA > 5) and mean motor activity (MA). Moreover, a linear discriminant function (LDF) was developed to identify and combine the most useful actigraphic sleep parameters to separate insomniapatients from normal sleepers. Using Youden index we calculated the preliminary QAC for each actigraphic sleep parameter and for LDF. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for classifying the accuracy of QAC were performed. RESULTS: All sleep parameters recorded by actigraphy significantly differentiated the 2 groups, except TIB. An LDF analysis showed that the most useful combination of actigraphic sleep parameters to assess insomnia was TST, SOL, and NA > 5, which obtained the best ROC and the best balance between positive and negative predictive values compared to any single actigraphic parameter. CONCLUSION: Actigraphy provided a satisfactory objective measurement of sleep quality in insomniapatients. The combination of TST, SOL, and NA > 5 proved the best way to assess insomnia using actigraphy. Acknowledging that the lack of a technological standard and some methodological limitations prevent us generalizing our results, we recommend additional studies on larger populations using different actigraph models.
Authors: Luciane de Souza; Ana Amélia Benedito-Silva; Maria Laura Nogueira Pires; Dalva Poyares; Sergio Tufik; Helena Maria Calil Journal: Sleep Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Michael Littner; Clete A Kushida; W McDowell Anderson; Dennis Bailey; Richard B Berry; David G Davila; Max Hirshkowitz; Sheldon Kapen; Milton Kramer; Daniel Loube; Merrill Wise; Stephen F Johnson Journal: Sleep Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: A Roebuck; V Monasterio; E Gederi; M Osipov; J Behar; A Malhotra; T Penzel; G D Clifford Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Arnoud Bulckaert; Vasileios Exadaktylos; Guido De Bruyne; Bart Haex; Elke De Valck; Johan Wuyts; Johan Verbraecken; Daniel Berckmans Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2010-01-23 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Andrew R Spector; Brittany N Dugger; Zbigniew K Wszolek; Ryan J Uitti; Paul Fredrickson; Joseph Kaplan; Bradley F Boeve; Dennis W Dickson; Audrey Strongosky; Siong-Chi Lin Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Jessica C Levenson; Wendy M Troxel; Amy Begley; Martica Hall; Anne Germain; Timothy H Monk; Daniel J Buysse Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 4.062