ArticleBMC medicine2020
Actigraphy in brain-injured patients - A valid measurement for assessing circadian rhythms?
Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Does the Heart Fall Asleep?-Diurnal Variations in Heart Rate Variability in Patients with Disorders of Consciousness.Brain 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundActigraphy has received increasing attention in classifying rest-activity cycles. However, in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC), actigraphy data may be considerably confounded by passive movements, such as nursing activities and therapies. Consequently, this study verified whether circadian rhythmicity is (still) visible in actigraphy data from patients with DOC after correcting for passive movements.
methodsWrist actigraphy was recorded over 7-8 consecutive days in patients with DOC (diagnosed with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome [UWS; n = 19] and [exit] minimally conscious state [MCS/EMCS; n = 11]). The presence and actions of clinical and research staff as well as visitors were indicated using a tablet in the patient's room. Following removal and interpolation of passive movements, non-parametric rank-based tests were computed to identify differences between circadian parameters of uncorrected and corrected actigraphy data.
resultsUncorrected actigraphy data overestimated the interdaily stability and intradaily variability of patients' activity and underestimated the deviation from a circadian 24-h rhythm. Only 5/30 (17%) patients deviated more than 1 h from 24 h in the uncorrected data, whereas this was the case for 17/30 (57%) patients in the corrected data. When contrasting diagnoses based on the corrected dataset, stronger circadian rhythms and higher activity levels were observed in MCS/EMCS as compared to UWS patients. Day-to-night differences in activity were evident for both patient groups.
conclusionOur findings indicate that uncorrected actigraphy data overestimates the circadian rhythmicity of patients' activity, as nursing activities, therapies, and visits by relatives follow a circadian pattern itself. Therefore, we suggest correcting actigraphy data from patients with reduced mobility.
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.