STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare sleep parameters produced by the Fitbit Charge 3 (Fitbit) and Actigraph GT9X accelerometer (Actigraph) to polysomnography in children and adolescents. METHODS: Participants (n = 56, ages 9.2 ± 3.3 years) wore a Fitbit and an Actigraph on their nondominant wrist concurrently with polysomnography during an overnight observation at a children's sleep laboratory. Total sleep time, sleep efficiency, wake after sleep onset, sleep onset, and sleep offset were extracted from the Fitabase and Actilife software packages, respectively, with the Sadeh algorithm. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between wearable devices and polysomnography. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of participants were diagnosed with OSA. Compared with polysomnography, the Fitbit and the Actigraph underestimated total sleep time by 6.1 minutes (absolute mean bias [AMB] = 27.7 minutes) and 31.5 minutes (AMB = 38.2 minutes), respectively. The Fitbit overestimated sleep efficiency by 3.0% (AMB = 6.3%), and the Actigraph underestimated sleep efficiency by 12.9% (AMB = 13.2%). The Fitbit overestimated wake after sleep onset by 18.8 minutes (AMB = 23.9 minutes), and the Actigraph overestimated wake after sleep onset by 56.1 minutes (AMB = 54.7 minutes). In addition, the Fitbit and the Actigraph underestimated sleep onset by 1.2 minutes (AMB = 13.9 minutes) and 10.2 minutes (AMB = 18.1 minutes), respectively. Finally, the Fitbit and the Actigraph overestimated sleep offset by 6.0 minutes (AMB = 12.0 minutes) and 10.5 minutes (AMB = 12.6 minutes). Linear regression indicated significant trends, with the Fitbit underestimating wake after sleep onset and sleep efficiency at higher values. CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit provided comparable and in some instances better sleep estimates with polysomnography compared to the Actigraph. Findings support the use of multichannel devices to measure sleep in children and adolescents. Additional studies are needed in healthy children over several nights and in free-living settings.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare sleep parameters produced by the Fitbit Charge 3 (Fitbit) and Actigraph GT9X accelerometer (Actigraph) to polysomnography in children and adolescents. METHODS: Participants (n = 56, ages 9.2 ± 3.3 years) wore a Fitbit and an Actigraph on their nondominant wrist concurrently with polysomnography during an overnight observation at a children's sleep laboratory. Total sleep time, sleep efficiency, wake after sleep onset, sleep onset, and sleep offset were extracted from the Fitabase and Actilife software packages, respectively, with the Sadeh algorithm. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between wearable devices and polysomnography. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of participants were diagnosed with OSA. Compared with polysomnography, the Fitbit and the Actigraph underestimated total sleep time by 6.1 minutes (absolute mean bias [AMB] = 27.7 minutes) and 31.5 minutes (AMB = 38.2 minutes), respectively. The Fitbit overestimated sleep efficiency by 3.0% (AMB = 6.3%), and the Actigraph underestimated sleep efficiency by 12.9% (AMB = 13.2%). The Fitbit overestimated wake after sleep onset by 18.8 minutes (AMB = 23.9 minutes), and the Actigraph overestimated wake after sleep onset by 56.1 minutes (AMB = 54.7 minutes). In addition, the Fitbit and the Actigraph underestimated sleep onset by 1.2 minutes (AMB = 13.9 minutes) and 10.2 minutes (AMB = 18.1 minutes), respectively. Finally, the Fitbit and the Actigraph overestimated sleep offset by 6.0 minutes (AMB = 12.0 minutes) and 10.5 minutes (AMB = 12.6 minutes). Linear regression indicated significant trends, with the Fitbit underestimating wake after sleep onset and sleep efficiency at higher values. CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit provided comparable and in some instances better sleep estimates with polysomnography compared to the Actigraph. Findings support the use of multichannel devices to measure sleep in children and adolescents. Additional studies are needed in healthy children over several nights and in free-living settings.
Authors: Richard B Berry; Rita Brooks; Charlene Gamaldo; Susan M Harding; Robin M Lloyd; Stuart F Quan; Matthew T Troester; Bradley V Vaughn Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
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: Xuan Kai Lee; Nicholas I Y N Chee; Ju Lynn Ong; Teck Boon Teo; Elaine van Rijn; June C Lo; Michael W L Chee Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Mohammed Hakim; Rebecca Miller; Mumin Hakim; Dmitry Tumin; Joseph D Tobias; Kris R Jatana; Vidya T Raman Journal: Minerva Pediatr (Torino) Date: 2018-11-07
Authors: William J Kane; Taryn E Hassinger; David L Chu; Emma L Myers; Ashley N Charles; Sook C Hoang; Charles M Friel; Robert H Thiele; Eric M Davis; Traci L Hedrick Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ethan T Hunt; Lauren von Klinggraeff; Alexis Jones; Sarah Burkart; Rodrick Dugger; Bridget Armstrong; Michael W Beets; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Marco Geraci; R Glenn Weaver Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2021-05-26