Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37947051›Full record

ArticleSleep2024

Can we rely on wearable sleep-tracker devices for fatigue management?

Jaques Reifman, Nikolai V Priezjev, Francisco G Vital-Lopez

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sleep, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A narrative review on in-flight use of consumer sleep technologies for aviation research.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jaques ReifmanDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7292-2029
Nikolai V PriezjevDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, USA.
Francisco G Vital-LopezDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5314-8373
Henry M. Jackson Foundation · USTelemedicine & Advanced Technology Research Center · US

Funding

U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command W81XWH20C0031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesWearable sleep-tracker devices are ubiquitously used to measure sleep; however, the estimated sleep parameters often differ from the gold-standard polysomnography (PSG). It is unclear to what extent we can tolerate these errors within the context of a particular clinical or operational application. Here, we sought to develop a method to quantitatively determine whether a sleep tracker yields acceptable sleep-parameter estimates for assessing alertness impairment.

methodsUsing literature data, we characterized sleep-measurement errors of 18 unique sleep-tracker devices with respect to PSG. Then, using predictions based on the unified model of performance, we compared the temporal variation of alertness in terms of the psychomotor vigilance test mean response time for simulations with and without added PSG-device sleep-measurement errors, for nominal schedules of 5, 8, or 9 hours of sleep/night or an irregular sleep schedule each night for 30 consecutive days. Finally, we deemed a device error acceptable when the predicted differences were smaller than the within-subject variability of 30 milliseconds. We also established the capability to estimate the extent to which a specific sleep-tracker device meets this acceptance criterion.

resultsOn average, the 18 sleep-tracker devices overestimated sleep duration by 19 (standard deviation = 44) minutes. Using these errors for 30 consecutive days, we found that, regardless of sleep schedule, in nearly 80% of the time the resulting predicted alertness differences were smaller than 30 milliseconds.

conclusionsWe provide a method to quantitatively determine whether a sleep-tracker device produces sleep measurements that are operationally acceptable for fatigue management.

Indexed as

SleepWearable Electronic DevicesFatigueHumansPolysomnographyReproducibility of Resultsfatiguesleep measuressleep parameterssleep-tracker devicewearables

Identifiers

PMID37947051
OpenAlexW4388578743

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.