SynthesisJournal of sleep research2026
Exploring the Relationship Between General Motor Activity and Optimal Actigraphy Sleep Configurations: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of sleep research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the Relationship Between General Motor Activity and Optimal Actigraphy Sleep Configurations: A Systematic Review.Journal of sleep research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the optimal configuration of wrist actigraphy for detecting sleep-wake patterns in adults with varying categories of general motor activity (Aim 1), and to assess its validity in relation to polysomnography (Aim 2). For Aim 1, a systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and QUADAS-2 guidelines using data sources including Embase, MedlineALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Cinahl, and Google Scholar. For Aim 2, a meta-analysis was performed on mean sleep differences between actigraphy and polysomnography of studies that analysed actigraphy using the optimal configuration with similar categories of general motor activity. In total, 21 studies that investigated the Oakley algorithm (used by Actiwatch and Motionwatch) in various sleep-wake thresholds provided sufficient information to define the optimal threshold (Aim 1). Additionally, 39 studies (all using Actiwatch) validated the optimal threshold for the respective category of general motor activity and were used to determine its validity (Aim 2). Findings regarding Aim 1 indicated that for actigraphs using the Oakley algorithm, no threshold other than the default setting of 40 cpm minimised differences between actigraphy and polysomnography for adults with normal general motor activity. However, a threshold of 20 cpm enhanced accuracy for adults with reduced general motor activity. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies included for Aim 2, it was not possible to determine the validity of actigraphy, and thereby the minimum general motor activity needed for reliable actigraphy. Further research on customising actigraph configurations is needed.
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.