Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39789983›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2025

Evolving trends in novel sleep tracking and sleep testing technology publications between 2020 and 2022.

Steven Holfinger, Sharon Schutte-Rodin, Dulip Ratnasoma, Ambrose A Chiang, Kelly Baron, Maryann Deak, Evin Jerkins, Julie Baughn, Kevin Gipson, Reut Gruber and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From classic to cutting-edge: technological approaches to respiratory physiological signals in assessing sleep-disordered breathing.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026
    Review
  2. Editorial: The promise of sleep technology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Steven HolfingerThe Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Sharon Schutte-RodinUniversity of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dulip RatnasomaFirst Physicians Group, Sarasota, Florida.
Ambrose A ChiangLouis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Kelly BaronUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Maryann DeakEvernorth Health Services, Boston, Massachusetts.
Evin JerkinsOhio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Dublin, Ohio.
Julie BaughnMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Kevin GipsonHarvard Medical School, Mass General Hospital for Children, Boston, Massachusetts.
Reut GruberMcGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Jennifer N MillerUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Shalini ParuthiSaint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sachin ShahIndiana University Health North Hospital, Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Anuja BandyopadhyayIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
American Academy of Sleep Medicine Emerging Technology Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesTo update sleep medicine providers regarding (1) published research on the uses and performance of novel sleep tracking and testing technologies, (2) the use of artificial intelligence to acquire and process sleep data, and (3) research trends and gaps regarding the development and/or evaluation of these technologies.

methodsMedline and Embase electronic databases were searched for studies utilizing screening and diagnostic sleep technologies, published between 2020 and 2022 in journals focusing on human sleep. Studies' quality was determined based on the Study Design criteria of The Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence.

resultsNinety-six of 3,849 articles were included. Most studies were adult performance evaluation (validation) studies, often comparing a novel technology to polysomnography. Sleep tracker publications tended to be Unites States-based, nonindustry-funded, performance studies on healthy adults using non-Food and Drug Administration-cleared technologies. Sleep apnea testing technologies were more frequently industry-funded and Food and Drug Administration-cleared. All studied technologies utilized software with an algorithm and/or artificial intelligence. Few studies used randomized control designs, or accounted for recruitment/attrition biases associated with participants' age, race/ethnicity, or comorbid health conditions.

conclusionsEvidence-based publications have not kept pace with the proliferation and landscape of consumer and clinical sleep technologies. Due to the variance in technologies used within sleep research, careful review of the software used within studies is recommended. Future publications may fill identified gaps by including underrepresented populations, maintaining independence from industry, and through rigorous study design. CITATION: Holfinger S, Schutte-Rodin S, Ratnasoma D, et al. Evolving trends in novel sleep tracking and sleep testing technology publications between 2020 and 2022.

Indexed as

PolysomnographySleepSleep Wake DisordersArtificial IntelligenceHumansSleep Medicine Specialtyconsumer sleep technologyinsomniaobstructive sleep apneasleepwearables

Identifiers

PMID39789983
PMCPMC12048328

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.