Alexia Gruwez1, Walter Libert2, Lieveke Ameye3, Marie Bruyneel4. 1. Chest Service, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, 322 rue haute, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: alexia.gruwez@stpierre-bru.be. 2. Chest Service, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, 322 rue haute, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: walter.libert@stpierre-bru.be. 3. Data Center, Bordet Institute, 121 Boulevard de Waterloo, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: lieveke.ameye@bordet.be. 4. Chest Service, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, 322 rue haute, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: Marie_Bruyneel@stpierre-bru.be.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Wearable health devices have become trendy among consumers, but it is not known whether they accurately measure sleep and physical activity parameters. To address this question, we have studied the measured data of two consumer-level activity monitors (Up Move Jawbone® (U) and Withings Pulse 02® (W)) and compared it with reference methods for sleep and activity recordings, namely the Bodymedia SenseWear Pro Armband® actigraph (SWA) and home-polysomnography (H-PSG). METHODS: Twenty healthy patients were assessed at home, during sleep, with the four devices. An additional 24-h period of recording was then planned during which they wore the 2 trackers and the SWA. Physical activity and sleep parameters obtained with the 4 devices were analyzed. RESULTS: Significant correlations with H-PSG were obtained for total sleep time (TST) for all the devices: r=0.48 for W (p=0.04), r=0.63 for U (p=0.002), r=0.7 for SWA (p=0.0003). The best coefficient was obtained with SWA. Significant correlations were also obtained for time in bed (TIB) for U and SWA vs PSG (r=0.79 and r=0.76, p<0.0001 for both) but not for W (r=0.45, p=0.07). No significant correlations were obtained for deep sleep, light sleep, and sleep efficiency (SE) measurements with W, U and SWA. Sleep latency (SL) correlated with H-PSG only when measured against SWA (r=0.5, p=0.02). Physical activity assessment revealed significant correlations for U and W with SWA for step count (both r=0.95 and p<0.0001) and active energy expenditure (EE) (r=0.65 and 0.54; p=0.0006 and p<0.0001). Total EE was also correctly estimated (r=0.75 and 0.52; p<0.0001 and p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Sleep and activity monitors are only able to produce a limited set of reliable measurements, such as TST, step count, and active EE, with a preference for U which performs globally better. Despite the manual activation to sleep mode, U and W were not suitable for giving correct data such as sleep architecture, SE, and SL. In the future, to enhance accuracy of such monitors, researchers and providers have to collaborate to write algorithms based reliably on sleep physiology. It could avoid misleading the consumer.
INTRODUCTION: Wearable health devices have become trendy among consumers, but it is not known whether they accurately measure sleep and physical activity parameters. To address this question, we have studied the measured data of two consumer-level activity monitors (Up Move Jawbone® (U) and Withings Pulse 02® (W)) and compared it with reference methods for sleep and activity recordings, namely the Bodymedia SenseWear Pro Armband® actigraph (SWA) and home-polysomnography (H-PSG). METHODS: Twenty healthy patients were assessed at home, during sleep, with the four devices. An additional 24-h period of recording was then planned during which they wore the 2 trackers and the SWA. Physical activity and sleep parameters obtained with the 4 devices were analyzed. RESULTS: Significant correlations with H-PSG were obtained for total sleep time (TST) for all the devices: r=0.48 for W (p=0.04), r=0.63 for U (p=0.002), r=0.7 for SWA (p=0.0003). The best coefficient was obtained with SWA. Significant correlations were also obtained for time in bed (TIB) for U and SWA vs PSG (r=0.79 and r=0.76, p<0.0001 for both) but not for W (r=0.45, p=0.07). No significant correlations were obtained for deep sleep, light sleep, and sleep efficiency (SE) measurements with W, U and SWA. Sleep latency (SL) correlated with H-PSG only when measured against SWA (r=0.5, p=0.02). Physical activity assessment revealed significant correlations for U and W with SWA for step count (both r=0.95 and p<0.0001) and active energy expenditure (EE) (r=0.65 and 0.54; p=0.0006 and p<0.0001). Total EE was also correctly estimated (r=0.75 and 0.52; p<0.0001 and p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Sleep and activity monitors are only able to produce a limited set of reliable measurements, such as TST, step count, and active EE, with a preference for U which performs globally better. Despite the manual activation to sleep mode, U and W were not suitable for giving correct data such as sleep architecture, SE, and SL. In the future, to enhance accuracy of such monitors, researchers and providers have to collaborate to write algorithms based reliably on sleep physiology. It could avoid misleading the consumer.
Authors: Kelly Glazer Baron; Jennifer Duffecy; Mark A Berendsen; Ivy Cheung Mason; Emily G Lattie; Natalie C Manalo Journal: Sleep Med Rev Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 11.609
Authors: Christopher M Depner; Philip C Cheng; Jaime K Devine; Seema Khosla; Massimiliano de Zambotti; Rébecca Robillard; Andrew Vakulin; Sean P A Drummond Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 5.849
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: André Henriksen; Martin Haugen Mikalsen; Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay; Miroslav Muzny; Gunnar Hartvigsen; Laila Arnesdatter Hopstock; Sameline Grimsgaard Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 5.428