Cited by 232Sleep and related disordersCircadian rhythm and melatoninObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Agreement of different methods for assessing sleep characteristics: a comparison of two actigraphs, wrist and hip placement, and self-report with polysomnography

Zinkhan, Melanie, Berger, Klaus, Hense, Sabrina, Nagel, Maren, Obst, Anne, Koch, Beate, Penzel, Thomas, Fietze, Ingo +8 more·2014·Sleep Medicine

Abstract

Objective To assess the agreement of sleep parameters measured by two actigraphs (SOMNOwatch plus, ActiGraph GT3X+) at two different placements (wrist, hip) and of self-reported sleep with polysomnography (PSG).Methods We estimated agreement with PSG for total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), number of awakenings after sleep onset (NASO), and sleep efficiency (SE%) for 100 participants of the general population, aged 18-75 years by judging mean differences to PSG and intervals of agreement using Bland-Altman plots.Results Mean difference to PSG for TST was 8.3 min (95% confidence intervals [CI] -7.4; 24.1) for SOMNOwatch plus (wrist), 39.8 min (95% CI 24.3; 55.3) for self-report, -79.0 min (95% CI -89.0; -68.9) for SOMNOwatch plus (hip), and -81.1 min (95% CI -91.9; -70.4) for GT3X+ (hip), respectively. The width of intervals of agreement differed with the placement of the devices. Mean differences to PSG were higher for hip-based measurements compared with wrist placement for most parameters.Conclusions Agreement of sleep parameters assessed by actigraphy with PSG differs with the placement of the device and is limited for hip-based measurements. Agreement of self-report with PSG is comparable to that of actigraphy for some parameters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sleep.2014.04.015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 232

Authors
Zinkhan, M., Berger, K., Hense, S., Nagel, M., Obst, A., Koch, B., Penzel, T., Fietze, I., Ahrens, W., Young, P., Happe, S., Kantelhardt, J. W., Kluttig, A., Schmidt-Pokrzywniak, A., Pillmann, F., & Stang, A.
Affiliations
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS (DE)
  • Universität Greifswald (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Zinkhan, Melanie
Venue
Sleep Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
1107-1114
ISSN
1389-9457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062315982
Cited by
232
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4
FWCI
22.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01ER1001A-1)
  • Helmholtz Association
  • Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
actigraphy, self-reported sleep, polysomnography, total sleep time, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset, number of awakenings, sleep efficiency
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Polysomnography, Young Adult, Actigraphy, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review