OBJECTIVES: To compare different actigraphy scoring settings with polysomnography (PSG) for 1 night of total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep onset latency (SOL) in healthy pregnant women between 6 and 7 months of gestation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis using data from a case-control study. SETTING: A large university-affiliated hospital in the Midwestern United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 78 pregnant women were recruited, among which 38 healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies were included for this analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Participants had an overnight PSG assessment at a sleep center while simultaneously wearing an actigraph (Minimitter; Philips Respironics, Andover, MA). Sleep parameters from both devices included TST, SE, WASO, and SOL. Four scoring settings were used to obtain these parameters from actigraphy. Bland-Altman tests were used to evaluate the agreement between sleep variables scored independently from actigraphy and PSG. RESULTS: The default scoring setting (10-by-40) yielded significantly different results from the PSG (P < .01). The 10 immobile/mobile minutes for sleep onset/end with an activity threshold of 10 (10-by-10) produced estimations of TST, SE, and WASO closest to those produced by PSG. When this setting was used, the mean differences between PSG- and actigraphy-assessed TST, SE, and WASO were -1.9 minutes, -0.4%, and 7.4 minutes. When the 10 and 15 immobile/mobile minutes for sleep onset/end were used, the difference between PSG- and actigraphy-assessed SOL was approximately 4 to 5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study do not support the use of default actigraph settings in pregnant women. In contrast, the 10-by-10 scoring setting provided the greatest agreement and least bias in comparison with PSG for sleep measurements. The 10-by-10 scoring setting is recommended to be used in studies consisting of pregnant women. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To compare different actigraphy scoring settings with polysomnography (PSG) for 1 night of total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep onset latency (SOL) in healthy pregnant women between 6 and 7 months of gestation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis using data from a case-control study. SETTING: A large university-affiliated hospital in the Midwestern United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 78 pregnant women were recruited, among which 38 healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies were included for this analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Participants had an overnight PSG assessment at a sleep center while simultaneously wearing an actigraph (Minimitter; Philips Respironics, Andover, MA). Sleep parameters from both devices included TST, SE, WASO, and SOL. Four scoring settings were used to obtain these parameters from actigraphy. Bland-Altman tests were used to evaluate the agreement between sleep variables scored independently from actigraphy and PSG. RESULTS: The default scoring setting (10-by-40) yielded significantly different results from the PSG (P < .01). The 10 immobile/mobile minutes for sleep onset/end with an activity threshold of 10 (10-by-10) produced estimations of TST, SE, and WASO closest to those produced by PSG. When this setting was used, the mean differences between PSG- and actigraphy-assessed TST, SE, and WASO were -1.9 minutes, -0.4%, and 7.4 minutes. When the 10 and 15 immobile/mobile minutes for sleep onset/end were used, the difference between PSG- and actigraphy-assessed SOL was approximately 4 to 5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study do not support the use of default actigraph settings in pregnant women. In contrast, the 10-by-10 scoring setting provided the greatest agreement and least bias in comparison with PSG for sleep measurements. The 10-by-10 scoring setting is recommended to be used in studies consisting of pregnant women. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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: Miguel Marino; Yi Li; Michael N Rueschman; J W Winkelman; J M Ellenbogen; J M Solet; Hilary Dulin; Lisa F Berkman; Orfeu M Buxton Journal: Sleep Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Saad M Alsaadi; James H McAuley; Julia M Hush; Delwyn J Bartlett; Zoe M McKeough; Ronald R Grunstein; George C Dungan; Chris G Maher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Maristella Lucchini; Louise M O'Brien; Linda G Kahn; Patricia A Brennan; Kelly Glazer Baron; Emily A Knapp; Claudia Lugo-Candelas; Lauren Shuffrey; Galit Levi Dunietz; Yeyi Zhu; Rosalind J Wright; Robert O Wright; Cristiane Duarte; Margaret R Karagas; Pakkay Ngai; Thomas G O'Connor; Julie B Herbstman; Sean Dioni; Anne Marie Singh; Carmela Alcantara; William P Fifer; Amy J Elliott Journal: Sleep Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 6.313