2012
DOI: 10.5665/sleep.1608
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Direct Comparison of Two New Actigraphs and Polysomnography in Children and Adolescents

Abstract: Similar to previous reports, both new actigraph brands were found to have good sensitivity (to detect sleep), but poorer specificity (to detect wake). Study results also suggest that researchers should adjust the scoring algorithm/sensitivity depending on a study's design (e.g., young children vs. adolescents, healthy children vs. youth with SDB). Further, inter-device reliability was poor, suggesting the need for caution when comparing results across studies that use different brands of actigraphic devices.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

16
256
4
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 221 publications
(277 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
16
256
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While they are important considerations for studies using accelerometer-measured sleeping parameters, the conclusions of our study were not affected by these concerns. First, the sleeping profile of the Actiwatch 2 validation study Dr. Kawada was referring to, Meltzer et al 2012 [1], was similar to our sample (wake after sleep onset 69.2 vs 73.7 min, sleep efficiency 82.3 vs 86.1%); therefore, the results of this Actiwatch 2 validation study should be able to extend to our sample. Second, we reported the agreement of Actiwatch 2 and Actigraph for high, medium, and low thresholds plus other four classification methods (Tables 3 and 4 in our paper), and researchers can decide which classification method to be used according to the agreements.…”
supporting
confidence: 67%
“…While they are important considerations for studies using accelerometer-measured sleeping parameters, the conclusions of our study were not affected by these concerns. First, the sleeping profile of the Actiwatch 2 validation study Dr. Kawada was referring to, Meltzer et al 2012 [1], was similar to our sample (wake after sleep onset 69.2 vs 73.7 min, sleep efficiency 82.3 vs 86.1%); therefore, the results of this Actiwatch 2 validation study should be able to extend to our sample. Second, we reported the agreement of Actiwatch 2 and Actigraph for high, medium, and low thresholds plus other four classification methods (Tables 3 and 4 in our paper), and researchers can decide which classification method to be used according to the agreements.…”
supporting
confidence: 67%
“…Actigraphy is a validated wristwatch-like device that distinguishes sleep from wakefulness based on accelerometer measured movement. 18,19 Caregivers simultaneously completed a daily sleep diary which was used to identify bedtime and wake time, as well as to identify when the device was removed. Data were analyzed and interpreted centrally by a single technologist and a single pediatric sleep medicine specialist, respectively.…”
Section: Actigraphymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 The Actiwatch2 (Philips Respironics, Oregon, United States) is a widely used actigraph worn on the nondominant wrist that has the capability to determine sleep and wake patterns. 5 It has been validated against PSG in healthy children 6 and adults. 3 Sleep parameters can be derived from Actiwatch2 recordings using three different threshold settings (low, medium, or high) for detection of wake-related accelerations (movements) before…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%