ArticleSleep health2018
Objective sleep in pregnant women: a comparison of actigraphy and polysomnography.
Article in Sleep health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the Relationship Between General Motor Activity and Optimal Actigraphy Sleep Configurations: A Systematic Review.Journal of sleep research · 2026Pooled it
- Sleeping for Two: a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in pregnancy.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Trial
- Sleep, evening light exposure and perceived stress in healthy nulliparous women in the third trimester of pregnancy.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Subjective and objective sleep quality during late pregnancy and the association with maternal gut microbiota in Chinese pregnant women.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2026Article
- The implications of maternal sleep disruption on cardiovascular adaptations and cardiometabolic outcomes.The Lancet. Obstetrics, gynaecology, & women's health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for obstructive sleep apnea risk stratification in high-risk pregnant women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Diary- and actigraphy-estimated nighttime sleep during the perinatal period: A multimethod study.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Detecting sleep and physical activity changes across the perinatal period using wearable technology.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Article
- Evening blue-light exposure, maternal glucose, and infant birthweight.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo 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.
designSecondary analysis using data from a case-control study.
settingA large university-affiliated hospital in the Midwestern United States.
participantsA 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsFindings 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.