Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31383243›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2019

Sleep Validity of a Non-Contact Bedside Movement and Respiration-Sensing Device.

Margeaux M Schade, Christopher E Bauer, Billie R Murray, Luke Gahan, Emer P Doheny, Hannah Kilroy, Alberto Zaffaroni, Hawley E Montgomery-Downs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A validation study of a ballistocardiograph sleep tracker against polysomnography.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Validation of a nonwearable device in healthy adults with normal and short sleep durations.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Margeaux M SchadeDepartment of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Christopher E BauerDepartment of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Billie R MurrayDepartment of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Luke GahanResMed Sensor Technologies Ltd., Dublin, Ireland.
Emer P DohenyResMed Sensor Technologies Ltd., Dublin, Ireland.
Hannah KilroyResMed Sensor Technologies Ltd., Dublin, Ireland.
Alberto ZaffaroniResMed Sensor Technologies Ltd., Dublin, Ireland.
Hawley E Montgomery-DownsDepartment of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesTo assess the sleep detection and staging validity of a non-contact, commercially available bedside bio-motion sensing device (S+, ResMed) and evaluate the impact of algorithm updates.

methodsPolysomnography data from 27 healthy adult participants was compared epoch-by-epoch to synchronized data that were recorded and staged by actigraphy and S+. An update to the S+ algorithm (common in the rapidly evolving commercial sleep tracker industry) permitted comparison of the original (S+V1) and updated (S+V2) versions.

resultsSleep detection accuracy by S+V1 (93.3%), S+V2 (93.8%), and actigraphy (96.0%) was high; wake detection accuracy by each (69.6%, 73.1%, and 47.9%, respectively) was low. Higher overall S+ specificity, compared to actigraphy, was driven by higher accuracy in detecting wake before sleep onset (WBSO), which differed between S+V2 (90.4%) and actigraphy (46.5%). Stage detection accuracy by the S+ did not exceed 67.6% (for stage N2 sleep, by S+V2) for any stage. Performance is compared to previously established variance in polysomnography scored by humans: a performance standard which commercial devices should ideally strive to reach.

conclusionsSimilar limitations in detecting wake after sleep onset (WASO) were found for the S+ as have been previously reported for actigraphy and other commercial sleep tracking devices. S+ WBSO detection was higher than actigraphy, and S+V2 algorithm further improved WASO accuracy. Researchers and clinicians should remain aware of the potential for algorithm updates to impact validity. COMMENTARY: A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 935.

Indexed as

MovementRespirationSleepActigraphyAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePolysomnographyReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySleep Stagesactigraphyconsumer devicesleepvalidation

Identifiers

PMID31383243
PMCPMC6622509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.