ArticleResearch square2023
Comparing sleep measures in cancer survivors: Self-reported sleep diary versus objective wearable sleep tracker.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Cancer survivors are increasingly using wearable fitness trackers, but it's unclear if they match traditional self-reported sleep diaries. We aimed to compare sleep data from Fitbit and the Consensus Sleep Diary (CSD) in this group. Methods: We analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials, using both CSD and Fitbit to collect sleep outcomes: total sleep time (TST), wake time after sleep onset (WASO), number of awakenings (NWAK), time in bed (TIB) and sleep efficiency (SE). Insomnia severity was measured by Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). We used the Wilcoxon Singed Ranks Test, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, and the Mann-Whitney Test to compare sleep outcomes and assess their ability to distinguish insomnia severity levels between CSD and Fitbit data. Results: Among 62 participants, compared to CSD, Fitbit recorded longer TST by an average of 14.6 (SD = 84.9) minutes, longer WASO by an average of 28.7 (SD = 40.5) minutes, more NWAK by an average of 16.7 (SD = 6.6) times per night, and higher SE by an average of 7.1% (SD = 14.4); but shorter TIB by an average of 24.4 (SD = 71.5) minutes. All the differences were statistically significant (all p < 0.05), except for TST (p = 0.38). Moderate correlations were found for TST (r = 0.41, p = 0.001) and TIB (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). Compared to no/mild insomnia group, participants with clinical insomnia reported more NWAK (p = 0.009) and lower SE (p = 0.029) as measured by CSD, but Fitbit outcomes didn't. Conclusions: TST was the only similar outcome between Fitbit and CSD. Our study highlights the advantages, disadvantages, and clinical utilization of sleep trackers in oncology.
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.