Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30941431›Full record

ArticleSleep2019

Actimetry in infant sleep research: an approach to facilitate comparability.

Sarah F Schoch, Oskar G Jenni, Malcolm Kohler, Salome Kurth

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sleep, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah F SchochPulmonary Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Oskar G JenniChild Development Center, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Malcolm KohlerPulmonary Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Salome KurthPulmonary Clinic, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesOnly standardized objective assessments reliably capture the large variability of sleep behavior in infancy, which is the most pronounced throughout the human lifespan. This is important for clinical practice as well as basic research. Actimetry is a cost-efficient method to objectively estimate infant sleep/wake behavior from limb movements. Nevertheless, the standardization of actimetry-based sleep/wake measures is limited by two factors: the use of different computational approaches and the bias towards measuring only nighttime sleep-neglecting ~20 % of sleep infants obtain during daytime. Thus, we evaluate the comparability of two commonly used actimetry algorithms in infants and propose adjustments to increase comparability.

methodsWe used actimetry in 50 infants for 10 continuous days at ages 3, 6, and 12 months in a longitudinal approach. We analyzed the infants' sleep/wake behaviors by applying two algorithms: Sadeh and Oakley/Respironics. We compared minute-by-minute agreement and Kappa between the two algorithms, as well as the algorithms with sleep/wake measures from a comprehensive 24-hour parent-reported diary.

resultsAgreement between uncorrected algorithms was moderate (77%-84%). By introducing a six-step adjustment, we increased agreement between algorithms (96%-97%) and with the diary. This decreased the difference in estimated sleep behaviors, e.g. Total Sleep Duration from 4.5 to 0.2 hours.

conclusionsThese adjustments enhance comparability between infant actimetry studies and the inclusion of parent-reported diaries allows the integration of daytime sleep. Objectively assessed infant sleep that is comparable across different studies supports the establishment of normative developmental trajectories and clinical cutoffs.

Indexed as

ActigraphyAlgorithmsFemaleHumansInfantInfant BehaviorLongitudinal StudiesMaleMovementSleepTime Factorsactigraphyactimetryalgorithmpediatrics – infantsscoring

Identifiers

PMID30941431
PMCPMC6612674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.