Michael T Smith1, Christina S McCrae2, Joseph Cheung3, Jennifer L Martin4,5, Christopher G Harrod6, Jonathan L Heald6, Kelly A Carden7. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 3. Stanford Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 4. David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Los Angeles, California. 6. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, Darien, Illinois. 7. Saint Thomas Medical Partners-Sleep Specialists, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this systematic review is to provide supporting evidence for a clinical practice guideline on the use of actigraphy. METHODS: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compared the use of actigraphy, sleep logs, and/or polysomnography. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of using actigraphy as an objective measure of sleep and circadian parameters. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for making recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 81 studies that met inclusion criteria; all 81 studies provided data suitable for statistical analyses. These data demonstrate that actigraphy provides consistent objective data that is often unique from patient-reported sleep logs for some sleep parameters in adult and pediatric patients with suspected or diagnosed insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, central disorders of hypersomnolence, and adults with insufficient sleep syndrome. These data also demonstrate that actigraphy is not a reliable measure of periodic limb movements in adult and pediatric patients. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this systematic review is to provide supporting evidence for a clinical practice guideline on the use of actigraphy. METHODS: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compared the use of actigraphy, sleep logs, and/or polysomnography. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of using actigraphy as an objective measure of sleep and circadian parameters. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for making recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 81 studies that met inclusion criteria; all 81 studies provided data suitable for statistical analyses. These data demonstrate that actigraphy provides consistent objective data that is often unique from patient-reported sleep logs for some sleep parameters in adult and pediatric patients with suspected or diagnosed insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, central disorders of hypersomnolence, and adults with insufficient sleep syndrome. These data also demonstrate that actigraphy is not a reliable measure of periodic limb movements in adult and pediatric patients. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.
Authors: Sanjay R Patel; Jia Weng; Michael Rueschman; Katherine A Dudley; Jose S Loredo; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Maricelle Ramirez; Alberto R Ramos; Kathryn Reid; Ashley N Seiger; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Phyllis C Zee; Rui Wang Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Melanie Zinkhan; Klaus Berger; Sabrina Hense; Maren Nagel; Anne Obst; Beate Koch; Thomas Penzel; Ingo Fietze; Wolfgang Ahrens; Peter Young; Svenja Happe; Jan W Kantelhardt; Alexander Kluttig; Andrea Schmidt-Pokrzywniak; Frank Pillmann; Andreas Stang Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Seema Khosla; Maryann C Deak; Dominic Gault; Cathy A Goldstein; Dennis Hwang; Younghoon Kwon; Daniel O'Hearn; Sharon Schutte-Rodin; Michael Yurcheshen; Ilene M Rosen; Douglas B Kirsch; Ronald D Chervin; Kelly A Carden; Kannan Ramar; R Nisha Aurora; David A Kristo; Raman K Malhotra; Jennifer L Martin; Eric J Olson; Carol L Rosen; James A Rowley Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Christopher R Palmer; Daniel F Kripke; Henry C Savage; Larry A Cindrich; Richard T Loving; Jeffrey A Elliott Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: L Friedman; K Benson; A Noda; V Zarcone; D A Wicks; K O'Connell; J O Brooks; D L Bliwise; J A Yesavage Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Patricia A Richardson; Lauren E Harrison; Lauren C Heathcote; Gillian Rush; Deborah Shear; Chitra Lalloo; Korey Hood; Rikard K Wicksell; Jennifer Stinson; Laura E Simons Journal: Expert Rev Neurother Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.618
Authors: Desta Fekedulegn; Michael E Andrew; Mingming Shi; John M Violanti; Sarah Knox; Kim E Innes Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 2.179
Authors: Meredith E Rumble; William V McCall; Daniel A Dickson; Andrew D Krystal; Peter B Rosenquist; Ruth M Benca Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Karen A Matthews; Howard M Kravitz; Laisze Lee; Siobán D Harlow; Joyce T Bromberger; Hadine Joffe; Martica H Hall Journal: Sleep Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.849