Agreement of different methods for assessing sleep characteristics: a comparison of two actigraphs, wrist and hip placement, and self-report with polysomnography
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Self-reported sleep duration often differs considerably from objective measures of sleep duration, and may underestimate or overestimate sleep duration compared to these other methods.
“Self-reported sleep duration often differs considerably from objective measures of sleep duration, and may underestimate or overestimate sleep duration compared to these other methods.121–123”
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
- ORCID
- 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