Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A survey on sleep assessment methods

Open access
Ibáñez, Vanessa, Silva, Josep, Cauli, Omar·2018·PeerJ

Abstract

Purpose: A literature review is presented that aims to summarize and compare current methods to evaluate sleep. Methods: Current sleep assessment methods have been classified according to different criteria; e.g., objective (polysomnography, actigraphy…) vs. subjective (sleep questionnaires, diaries…), contact vs. contactless devices, and need for medical assistance vs. self-assessment. A comparison of validation studies is carried out for each method, identifying their sensitivity and specificity reported in the literature. Finally, the state of the market has also been reviewed with respect to customers’ opinions about current sleep apps. Results: A taxonomy that classifies the sleep detection methods. A description of each method that includes the tendencies of their underlying technologies analyzed in accordance with the literature. A comparison in terms of precision of existing validation studies and reports. Discussion: In order of accuracy, sleep detection methods may be arranged as follows: Questionnaire < Sleep diary < Contactless devices < Contact devices < Polysomnography A literature review suggests that current subjective methods present a sensitivity between 73% and 97.7%, while their specificity ranges in the interval 50%–96%. Objective methods such as actigraphy present a sensibility higher than 90%. However, their specificity is low compared to their sensitivity, being one of the limitations of such technology. Moreover, there are other factors, such as the patient’s perception of her or his sleep, that can be provided only by subjective methods. Therefore, sleep detection methods should be combined to produce a synergy between objective and subjective methods. The review of the market indicates the most valued sleep apps, but it also identifies problems and gaps, e.g., many hardware devices have not been validated and (especially software apps) should be studied before their clinical use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7717/peerj.4849

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 65 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Ibáñez, V., Silva, J., & Cauli, O.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2018-05-25
Volume
6
Pages
e4849
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2804616119
Cited by
316
References
65
FWCI
38.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A survey on sleep assessment methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj.4849
The paper
Ibáñez, V., Silva, J., & Cauli, O. (2018). A survey on sleep assessment methods. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4849

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.