ArticleJournal of sleep research2025
Evaluation of the Agreement Between Research-Grade Actigraphy Sleep, Consumer-Grade Smartwatches and Self-Reported Sleep Diaries in Masters Endurance Athletes.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consumer-oriented (wearable) sleep technology: a systematic SWOT analysis and recommendations for athletes and fitness enthusiasts.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Agreement Between Research-Grade Actigraphy Sleep, Consumer-Grade Smartwatches and Self-Reported Sleep Diaries in Masters Endurance Athletes.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sleep monitoring is a tool widely used to support recovery and performance in endurance athletes. This study aimed to assess agreement between research-grade actigraphy (ActiGraph GT9X), consumer-grade smartwatches (Garmin), and self-reported sleep diaries in masters endurance athletes. Seventy athletes (43 males, 46.3 ± 7.3 years; 27 females, 49.3 ± 8.3 years) wore ActiGraph and smartwatch devices on their non-dominant wrist while maintaining a self-reported sleep diary for seven consecutive nights. ActiGraph recorded the shortest total sleep time (332 ± 87 min), whereas the diary and smartwatch recorded longer sleep durations by 109 and 126 min, respectively (p < 0.001). Sleep efficiency (%) was also higher in the sleep diary and smartwatch compared to ActiGraph, with mean biases of -5.9% and -4.1%, respectively. Sleep diary values closely agreed with smartwatch values (ICC = 0.880, 95% CI: 0.624 to 0.946), while poor agreement was found between ActiGraph and the sleep diary (ICC = 0.190, 95% CI: -0.149 to 0.459). Proportional bias was evident in both the sleep diary and smartwatch, with greater differences in total sleep time and efficiency observed in athletes with shorter durations and lower sleep efficiency, respectively. Sex differences emerged, with stronger agreement between smartwatch and ActiGraph in sleep efficiency in females (ICC = 0.690, 95% CI: 0.336 to 0.857) than males (ICC = 0.481, 95% CI: -0.020 to 0.723). Findings suggest that both consumer-grade devices and self-reported sleep diaries report longer sleep durations and higher sleep efficiency relative to actigraphy. Sleep metrics from these methods should be interpreted with caution, particularly in athletes with shorter or more fragmented sleep.
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.