SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2026
Performance evaluation of finger-worn devices for sleep stage classification and sleep apnea detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, sleep wearables have experienced a boom, particularly devices worn on the finger, such as smart rings, which have garnered growing attention. However, there currently exists no review that comprehensively and systematically evaluates the accuracy of these devices. MAIN BODY: This scoping review evaluates 11 finger-worn devices against polysomnography (PSG) across 28 articles from inception to April, 2025, assessing sleep staging (primarily healthy participants) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) detection (clinical cohorts) via heterogeneous sensors and algorithms. Current evidence in our study demonstrates efficacy in sleep/wake classification (pooled accuracy = 87%, 95%CI = 86%~89%) and severe OSA screening, but reveals persistent challenges in multi-stage sleep analysis (pooled accuracy for light/deep/rapid eye movement (REM) sleep = 0.65, 0.81, 0.74, respectively) and mild OSA detection. All devices, except one, demonstrated higher accuracy at an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) threshold of 30 than at thresholds of 5 or 15.
conclusionsFinger-worn devices may be used for longitudinal sleep/wake tracking in healthy adults or as a triage tool for severe OSA, but should not replace PSG for diagnosis of mild OSA or detailed sleep architecture assessment. Achieving PSG-comparable accuracy in multi-stage sleep analysis and mild OSA detection requires addressing algorithmic transparency, population diversity, and standardized methodologies.
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.