STUDY OBJECTIVES: The algorithms used to derive sleep variables from actigraphy were developed with adults. Because children change position during sleep more often than adults, algorithms may detect wakefulness when the child is actually sleeping (false negative). This study compares the validity of three algorithms for detecting sleep with actigraphy by comparing them to PSG in preschoolers. The putative influence of device location (wrist or ankle) is also examined. METHODS: Twelve children aged 2 to 5 years simultaneously wore an actigraph on an ankle and a wrist (Actiwatch-L, Mini-Mitter/Respironics) during a night of PSG recording at home. Three algorithms were tested: one recommended for adults and two designed to decrease false negative detection of sleep in children. RESULTS: Actigraphy generally showed good sensitivity (> 95%; PSG sleep detection) but low specificity (± 50%; PSG wake detection). Intraclass correlations between PSG and actigraphy variables were strong (> 0.80) for sleep latency, sleep duration, and sleep efficiency, but weak for number of awakenings (< 0.40). The two algorithms designed for children enhanced the validity of actigraphy in preschoolers and increased the proportion of actigraphy-scored wake epochs scored that were also PSG-identified as wake. Sleep variables derived from the ankle and wrist were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: Despite the weak detection of wakefulness, Acti-watch-L appears to be a useful instrument for assessing sleep in preschoolers when used with an adapted algorithm.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The algorithms used to derive sleep variables from actigraphy were developed with adults. Because children change position during sleep more often than adults, algorithms may detect wakefulness when the child is actually sleeping (false negative). This study compares the validity of three algorithms for detecting sleep with actigraphy by comparing them to PSG in preschoolers. The putative influence of device location (wrist or ankle) is also examined. METHODS: Twelve children aged 2 to 5 years simultaneously wore an actigraph on an ankle and a wrist (Actiwatch-L, Mini-Mitter/Respironics) during a night of PSG recording at home. Three algorithms were tested: one recommended for adults and two designed to decrease false negative detection of sleep in children. RESULTS: Actigraphy generally showed good sensitivity (> 95%; PSG sleep detection) but low specificity (± 50%; PSG wake detection). Intraclass correlations between PSG and actigraphy variables were strong (> 0.80) for sleep latency, sleep duration, and sleep efficiency, but weak for number of awakenings (< 0.40). The two algorithms designed for children enhanced the validity of actigraphy in preschoolers and increased the proportion of actigraphy-scored wake epochs scored that were also PSG-identified as wake. Sleep variables derived from the ankle and wrist were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: Despite the weak detection of wakefulness, Acti-watch-L appears to be a useful instrument for assessing sleep in preschoolers when used with an adapted algorithm.
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: Daniel Combs; James L Goodwin; Stuart F Quan; Wayne J Morgan; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Jamie O Edgin; Sairam Parthasarathy Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Sapna R Kudchadkar; Othman Aljohani; Jordan Johns; Andrew Leroux; Eman Alsafi; Ebaa Jastaniah; Allan Gottschalk; Nehal J Shata; Ahmad Al-Harbi; Daniel Gergen; Anisha Nadkarni; Ciprian Crainiceanu Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Nancy S Redeker; Monica R Ordway; Nancy Banasiak; Barbara Caldwell; Craig Canapari; Angela Crowley; Ada Fenick; Sangchoon Jeon; Meghan O'Connell; Leslie Sude; Lois S Sadler Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Monica R Ordway; Lois S Sadler; Sangchoon Jeon; Meghan O'Connell; Nancy Banasiak; Ada M Fenick; Angela A Crowley; Craig Canapari; Nancy S Redeker Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Massimiliano de Zambotti; Nicola Cellini; Aimée Goldstone; Ian M Colrain; Fiona C Baker Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Lisa J Meltzer; Petrina Wong; Sarah N Biggs; Joel Traylor; Ji Young Kim; Rakesh Bhattacharjee; Indra Narang; Carole L Marcus Journal: Sleep Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Monica R Ordway; Lois S Sadler; Craig A Canapari; Sangchoon Jeon; Nancy S Redeker Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 2.228