OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between multiple commercial activity monitors (CAMs) and a validated actigraph to measure sleep. METHODS: Thirty adults without sleep disorders wore an Actiwatch Spectrum (AW) and alternated wearing 6 CAMs for one 24-h period each (Fitbit Alta, Jawbone Up3, Misfit Shine 2, Polar A360, Samsung Gear Fit2, Xiaomi Mi Band 2). Total sleep time (TST) and wake after sleep onset (WASO) were compared between edited AW and unedited CAM outputs. Comparisons between AW and CAM data were made via paired t-tests, mean absolute percent error (MAPE) calculations, and intra-class correlations (ICC). Intra-model reliability was performed in 10 participants who wore a pair of each AW and CAM model. RESULTS: Fitbit, Jawbone, Misfit, and Xiaomi overestimated TST relative to AW (53.7-80.4 min, P ≤ .001). WASO was underestimated by Fitbit, Misfit, Samsung and Xiaomi devices (15.0-27.9 min; P ≤ .004) and overestimated by Polar (27.7 min, P ≤ .001). MAPEs ranged from 5.1% (Samsung) to 25.4% (Misfit) for TST and from 36.6% (Fitbit) to 165.1% (Polar) for WASO. TST ICCs ranged from .00 (Polar) to .92 (Samsung), while WASO ICCs ranged from .38 (Misfit) to .69 (Samsung). Differences were similar between poor sleepers (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index global score >5; n = 10) and good sleepers. Intra-model reliability analyses revealed minimal between-pair differences and high ICCs. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between CAMs and AW varied by device, with greater agreement observed for TST than WASO. While reliable, variability in agreement across CAMs with traditional actigraphy may complicate the interpretation of CAM data obtained for clinical or research purposes.
OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between multiple commercial activity monitors (CAMs) and a validated actigraph to measure sleep. METHODS: Thirty adults without sleep disorders wore an Actiwatch Spectrum (AW) and alternated wearing 6 CAMs for one 24-h period each (Fitbit Alta, Jawbone Up3, Misfit Shine 2, Polar A360, Samsung Gear Fit2, Xiaomi Mi Band 2). Total sleep time (TST) and wake after sleep onset (WASO) were compared between edited AW and unedited CAM outputs. Comparisons between AW and CAM data were made via paired t-tests, mean absolute percent error (MAPE) calculations, and intra-class correlations (ICC). Intra-model reliability was performed in 10 participants who wore a pair of each AW and CAM model. RESULTS:Fitbit, Jawbone, Misfit, and Xiaomi overestimated TST relative to AW (53.7-80.4 min, P ≤ .001). WASO was underestimated by Fitbit, Misfit, Samsung and Xiaomi devices (15.0-27.9 min; P ≤ .004) and overestimated by Polar (27.7 min, P ≤ .001). MAPEs ranged from 5.1% (Samsung) to 25.4% (Misfit) for TST and from 36.6% (Fitbit) to 165.1% (Polar) for WASO. TST ICCs ranged from .00 (Polar) to .92 (Samsung), while WASO ICCs ranged from .38 (Misfit) to .69 (Samsung). Differences were similar between poor sleepers (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index global score >5; n = 10) and good sleepers. Intra-model reliability analyses revealed minimal between-pair differences and high ICCs. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between CAMs and AW varied by device, with greater agreement observed for TST than WASO. While reliable, variability in agreement across CAMs with traditional actigraphy may complicate the interpretation of CAM data obtained for clinical or research purposes.
Authors: Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Jennifer L Martin; Terri Blackwell; Luis Buenaver; Lianqi Liu; Lisa J Meltzer; Avi Sadeh; Adam P Spira; Daniel J Taylor Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.964
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: R Glenn Weaver; Michael W Beets; Michelle Perry; Ethan Hunt; Keith Brazendale; Lindsay Decker; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Russell Pate; Shawn D Youngstedt; Brian E Saelens; Alberto Maydeu-Olivares Journal: Sleep Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Massimiliano de Zambotti; Stephanie Claudatos; Sarah Inkelis; Ian M Colrain; Fiona C Baker Journal: Chronobiol Int Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Sarah Berryhill; Christopher J Morton; Adam Dean; Adam Berryhill; Natalie Provencio-Dean; Salma I Patel; Lauren Estep; Daniel Combs; Saif Mashaqi; Lynn B Gerald; Jerry A Krishnan; Sairam Parthasarathy Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Marissa A Evans; Daniel J Buysse; Anna L Marsland; Aidan G C Wright; Jill Foust; Lucas W Carroll; Naina Kohli; Rishabh Mehra; Adam Jasper; Swathi Srinivasan; Martica H Hall Journal: Sleep Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Meredith L Wallace; Timothy S Coleman; Lucas K Mentch; Daniel J Buysse; Jessica L Graves; Erika W Hagen; Martica H Hall; Katie L Stone; Susan Redline; Paul E Peppard Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Shahab Haghayegh; Sepideh Khoshnevis; Michael H Smolensky; Kenneth R Diller; Richard J Castriotta Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Patricia Concheiro-Moscoso; Francisco José Martínez-Martínez; María Del Carmen Miranda-Duro; Thais Pousada; Laura Nieto-Riveiro; Betania Groba; Francisco Javier Mejuto-Muiño; Javier Pereira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sigitas Kamandulis; Antanas Juodsnukis; Jurate Stanislovaitiene; Ilona Judita Zuoziene; Andrius Bogdelis; Mantas Mickevicius; Nerijus Eimantas; Audrius Snieckus; Bjørn Harald Olstad; Tomas Venckunas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-22 Impact factor: 3.390