ReviewOTO open
The Oura Ring Versus Medical-Grade Sleep Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Objective: To evaluate the validity of the Oura Ring (OR; Oura Health Ltd.) in measuring sleep parameters compared to medical-grade sleep studies including polysomnography (PSG) or actigraphy (ACT). Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL. Review Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated sleep parameters measured simultaneously by the OR and PSG or ACT. Outcomes assessed included Total Sleep Time (TST), Sleep Efficiency (SE), Wake After Sleep Onset (WASO), Sleep Onset Latency (SOL), Light Sleep Time (LST), Deep Sleep Time (DST), and Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep time. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. A Results: Out of 2104 articles, 6 studies (n = 388) were included. There were no statistically significant differences between the OR and PSG/ACT for TST (MD: -2.97 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.27 to 4.33), SE (MD: -1.32%; 95% CI: -2.76 to 0.12), WASO (MD: 1.64 min; 95% CI: -12.57 to 15.86), SOL (MD: 0.48 min; 95% CI: -2.93 to 3.89), LST (MD: -4.27 min; 95% CI: -24.68 to 16.13), DST (MD: 1.39 min; 95% CI: -10.45 to 13.23), and REM sleep time (MD: -3.89 min; 95% CI: -17.23 to 9.46). Conclusion: The OR demonstrates comparable accuracy to PSG and ACT for commonly measured sleep parameters, supporting its utility as a self-monitoring tool. This could prompt earlier clinical evaluation in symptomatic individuals or support remote monitoring of 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.