Blackwell Terri, Redline Susan, Ancoli-Israel Sonia, Schneider Jennifer L, Surovec Susan, Johnson Nathan L, Cauley Jane A, Stone Katie L
California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sleep. 2008 Feb;31(2):283-91. doi: 10.1093/sleep/31.2.283.
Total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), and wake after sleep onset (WASO) as assessed by actigraphy gathered in 3 different modes were compared to polysomnography (PSG) measurements. Each mode was compared to PSG to determine which was more accurate. Associations of the difference in TST measurement with demographics and sleep characteristics were examined.
Observational study.
Community-based.
Sixty-eight women (mean age 81.9 years) from the latest visit of the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures who were concurrently measured with PSG and actigraphy.
N/A.
In-home 12-channel PSG was gathered along with actigraphy data in 3 modes: proportional integration mode (PIM), time above threshold (TAT) and zero crossings mode (ZCM). The PIM mode corresponded better to PSG, with a mean overestimation of TST of 17.9 min. For the PIM mode, the estimation of TST and SE by PSG and actigraphy significantly differed (P < 0.01), while the estimation of WASO was similar (P = 0.27). The intraclass correlation between the 2 procedures was moderate to high (PIM mode: TST 0.76; SE 0.61; WASO 0.58). On average, the PIM mode underestimated TST by 68 min for those who slept < or = 5 hr, overestimated TST by 31 min for those with SE < 70%, and underestimated TST by 24 min for self-reported poor sleepers (P < 0.05).
Sleep parameters from actigraphy corresponded reasonably well to PSG in this population, with the PIM mode of actigraphy correlating highest. Those with poor sleep quality had the largest measurement error between the 2 procedures.
将通过三种不同模式收集的活动记录仪评估的总睡眠时间(TST)、睡眠效率(SE)和睡眠开始后觉醒时间(WASO)与多导睡眠图(PSG)测量结果进行比较。将每种模式与PSG进行比较,以确定哪种模式更准确。研究TST测量差异与人口统计学和睡眠特征之间的关联。
观察性研究。
基于社区。
来自骨质疏松性骨折研究最新一次访视的68名女性(平均年龄81.9岁),她们同时接受了PSG和活动记录仪测量。
无。
在家中采集12通道PSG数据以及活动记录仪数据,活动记录仪数据采集模式有三种:比例积分模式(PIM)、阈值以上时间(TAT)和过零模式(ZCM)。PIM模式与PSG的对应性更好,TST平均高估17.9分钟。对于PIM模式,PSG和活动记录仪对TST和SE的估计有显著差异(P<0.01),而对WASO的估计相似(P = 0.27)。两种测量方法之间的组内相关性为中度至高度(PIM模式:TST为0.76;SE为0.61;WASO为0.58)。平均而言,对于睡眠时间≤5小时的人,PIM模式低估TST 68分钟;对于SE<70%的人,高估TST 31分钟;对于自我报告睡眠质量差的人,低估TST 24分钟(P<0.05)。
在该人群中,活动记录仪记录的睡眠参数与PSG结果相当吻合,其中活动记录仪的PIM模式相关性最高。睡眠质量差的人在两种测量方法之间的测量误差最大。