Sarah S Farabi1, Lauretta Quinn2, David W Carley3,4. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Accurate objective measurement of sleep, an important health behavior, is needed. Individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have altered sleep architecture and reduced sleep quality in comparison with healthy controls. The aim of this investigation was to compare a commonly used actigraphy device, Actiwatch2, with polysomnography (PSG)-based measures of sleep in young adults with T1DM, and to determine which Actiwatch2 threshold setting provides the best correspondence. METHODS: Subjects age 18-30 years with T1DM wore the Actiwatch2 while simultaneously undergoing in-laboratory PSG. Sleep parameters were derived from the Actiwatch2 using the three different sensitivity thresholds (low, medium, and high) provided by the manufacturer and compared with sleep parameters from PSG. Statistical analysis included intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots for comparison of sleep parameters. Cohen kappa and the prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) were calculated to determine agreement between epoch-by-epoch sleep and wake data measured by the PSG versus Actiwatch2. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects were included in the analysis. The low threshold setting provided the greatest agreement and least bias in comparison with PSG for sleep parameters (intraclass correlation coefficient range 0.38 to 0.77). Mean differences between the low setting and PSG were nonsignificant (P > .65) for all sleep parameters except sleep onset latency (P = .04). All three settings provided approximately equivalent and moderate epoch-by-epoch agreement with the PSG (PABAK coefficients ranging from 0.56 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: When measuring sleep with the Actiwatch2 in young adults with T1DM, the low threshold setting provides the most accurate estimates of sleep parameters in comparison with PSG.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Accurate objective measurement of sleep, an important health behavior, is needed. Individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have altered sleep architecture and reduced sleep quality in comparison with healthy controls. The aim of this investigation was to compare a commonly used actigraphy device, Actiwatch2, with polysomnography (PSG)-based measures of sleep in young adults with T1DM, and to determine which Actiwatch2 threshold setting provides the best correspondence. METHODS: Subjects age 18-30 years with T1DM wore the Actiwatch2 while simultaneously undergoing in-laboratory PSG. Sleep parameters were derived from the Actiwatch2 using the three different sensitivity thresholds (low, medium, and high) provided by the manufacturer and compared with sleep parameters from PSG. Statistical analysis included intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots for comparison of sleep parameters. Cohen kappa and the prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) were calculated to determine agreement between epoch-by-epoch sleep and wake data measured by the PSG versus Actiwatch2. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects were included in the analysis. The low threshold setting provided the greatest agreement and least bias in comparison with PSG for sleep parameters (intraclass correlation coefficient range 0.38 to 0.77). Mean differences between the low setting and PSG were nonsignificant (P > .65) for all sleep parameters except sleep onset latency (P = .04). All three settings provided approximately equivalent and moderate epoch-by-epoch agreement with the PSG (PABAK coefficients ranging from 0.56 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: When measuring sleep with the Actiwatch2 in young adults with T1DM, the low threshold setting provides the most accurate estimates of sleep parameters in comparison with PSG.
Authors: Kyu Young Chae; Daniel F Kripke; J Steven Poceta; Farhad Shadan; Shazia M Jamil; John W Cronin; Lawrence E Kline Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2008-12-21 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Nicola Cellini; Matthew P Buman; Elizabeth A McDevitt; Ashley A Ricker; Sara C Mednick Journal: Chronobiol Int Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Kamila Jauch-Chara; Sebastian M Schmid; Manfred Hallschmid; Jan Born; Bernd Schultes Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M van Dijk; E Donga; J G van Dijk; G J Lammers; K W van Kralingen; O M Dekkers; E P M Corssmit; J A Romijn Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-05-15 Impact factor: 10.122
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: Bilgay Izci Balserak; Renata Hermann; Teri L Hernandez; Catalin Buhimschi; Chung Park Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 6.499
Authors: Stephanie Griggs; Margaret Grey; Kingman P Strohl; Sybil L Crawford; Seunghee Margevicius; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Chiang-Shan R Li; Sanjay Rajagopalan; Ronald L Hickman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Stephanie Griggs; Ronald L Hickman; Kingman P Strohl; Nancy S Redeker; Sybil L Crawford; Margaret Grey Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.324
Authors: Stephanie H Yu; Nicole B Gumport; Isaac A Mirzadegan; Yuh-Jang Mei; Kerrie Hein; Allison G Harvey Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Aimee Grace; Erick Chan; Francesco Giallauria; Petra L Graham; Neil A Smart Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 9.951