ArticleNature and science of sleep2025
Quantification of Differences in Sleep Measurement by a Wrist-Worn Consumer Wearable Compared to Research-Grade Accelerometry and Sleep Diaries of Female Adults in Free-Living Conditions.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study is to compare sleep measurements by a consumer-wearable with research-standard actigraphy coupled with sleep diaries in free-living female adults. Methods: Forty-seven females in the Nurses' Health Study 3 (NHS3) participated in the Sleep and Physical Activity Validation Substudy (SPAVS), where they were asked to concurrently wear a consumer wearable (Fitbit Charge, Models 3 or 5) and a research-grade accelerometer (Actigraph, GT3X+ or Actisleep) on the same wrist and fill out a smartphone-based sleep diary for fourteen consecutive days. We compared measures of total sleep time (TST), time in bed (TIB), and sleep efficiency (SE) from the consumer wearable with actigraphy measures as our research-standard reference for TST and SE and self-reported sleep diary as our reference for TIB. We calculated mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and intra-class correlations (ICC), as well as Bland-Altman analyses to compute mean difference and limits of agreement. Results: For all three measures, the consumer wearable underestimated sleep parameters relative to research-standard actigraphy, with a mean bias of -16.0 minutes and -11.2 minutes for TST and TIB, respectively, and -1.0% for SE. In terms of agreement, TST (MAPE = 11.18%; ICC = 0.79) and TIB (MAPE = 10.45%; ICC = 0.74) had similar MAPES and ICCs, while and SE (MAPE = 5.09%; ICC = 0.39) had a lower ICC. Conclusion: In the NHS3 SPAVS, the wearable sleep measurements modestly underestimated wrist actigraphy measures of TST, TIB, and SE from sleep over multiple days; within sleep measures assessed, TST and TIB had greater agreement with research-grade accelerometry than SE.
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.