ArticleSleep2024
The actigraphic evaluation of daytime sleep in central disorders of hypersomnolence: comparison with polysomnography.
Article in Sleep, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel, wearable, in-ear EEG technology to assess sleep and daytime sleepiness.Bioelectronic medicine · 2026Article
- Universal approach to actigraphic sleep/wake scoring, verified against 5 classic algorithms on 3 datasets.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Idiopathic hypersomnia is a 24-hour disorder.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Review
- Actigraphy against 32-hour polysomnography in patients with suspected idiopathic hypersomnia.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesThe role of actigraphy in central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH) is expanding but evidence of reliability with polysomnography (PSG) is scarce and provided only during nighttime. We explored the agreement between actigraphy and continuous 24-hour PSG at CDH diagnosis.
methodsForty-four consecutive drug-naïve patients (28 narcolepsy and 16 idiopathic hypersomnia [IH]) underwent actigraphy during 24 hours of free-running PSG, during multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and 13 of them also during maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT). Daytime and nighttime sleep features and MSLT and MWT mean sleep latencies (mSL) were estimated with the actigraphic algorithms by Cole-Kripke (CK), Sadeh (Sad), and University of California San Diego (UCSD). Agreement to corresponding PSG measures was assessed with Bland-Altman plots.
resultsNighttime-total sleep time (TST) in narcolepsy was significantly underestimated with CK (bias 27.8 minutes, 95% CI 13.7 to 41.9) and Sad (bias 56.7 minutes, 95% CI 38.8/74.5). Daytime-TST was overestimated in IH and narcolepsy with all algorithms (CK: bias -42.2, 95% CI -67/-17.4; Sad: bias -30.2 minutes, 95% CI -52.7/-7.7; UCSD bias -86.9 minutes, 95% CI -118.2/-55.6). 24-hour-TST was overestimated by CK and UCSD in IH (CK: bias -58.5 minutes, 95% CI -105.5/-11.5; UCSD: bias -118.8 minutes, 95% CI -172.5/-65), and by UCSD in narcolepsy (bias -68.8 minutes, 95% CI -109.3/-38.2). In the entire cohort, actigraphy overestimated MSLT mSL but not MWT mSL.
conclusionsConventional actigraphic algorithms overestimate 24-hour TST in IH and underestimate nighttime TST in narcolepsy. These discrepancies call for the cautious application of actigraphy in the diagnostic process of CDH and the development of new quantitative signal analysis approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39154204What 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.