Department of Health and Physical Activity, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Behav Sleep Med. 2020 Sep-Oct;18(5):637-652. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2019.1651316. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
To examine agreement between multiple commercial activity monitors (CAMs) and a validated actigraph to measure sleep.
Thirty adults without sleep disorders wore an Actiwatch Spectrum (AW) and alternated wearing 6 CAMs for one 24-h period each (Fitbit Alta, Jawbone Up3, Misfit Shine 2, Polar A360, Samsung Gear Fit2, Xiaomi Mi Band 2). Total sleep time (TST) and wake after sleep onset (WASO) were compared between edited AW and unedited CAM outputs. Comparisons between AW and CAM data were made via paired t-tests, mean absolute percent error (MAPE) calculations, and intra-class correlations (ICC). Intra-model reliability was performed in 10 participants who wore a pair of each AW and CAM model.
Fitbit, Jawbone, Misfit, and Xiaomi overestimated TST relative to AW (53.7-80.4 min, P ≤ .001). WASO was underestimated by Fitbit, Misfit, Samsung and Xiaomi devices (15.0-27.9 min; P ≤ .004) and overestimated by Polar (27.7 min, P ≤ .001). MAPEs ranged from 5.1% (Samsung) to 25.4% (Misfit) for TST and from 36.6% (Fitbit) to 165.1% (Polar) for WASO. TST ICCs ranged from .00 (Polar) to .92 (Samsung), while WASO ICCs ranged from .38 (Misfit) to .69 (Samsung). Differences were similar between poor sleepers (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index global score >5; n = 10) and good sleepers. Intra-model reliability analyses revealed minimal between-pair differences and high ICCs.
Agreement between CAMs and AW varied by device, with greater agreement observed for TST than WASO. While reliable, variability in agreement across CAMs with traditional actigraphy may complicate the interpretation of CAM data obtained for clinical or research purposes.
研究多个商业活动监测仪（CAM）与经过验证的活动记录仪在测量睡眠方面的一致性。
30 名无睡眠障碍的成年人佩戴 Actiwatch Spectrum（AW），并在每个 24 小时周期内交替佩戴 6 个 CAM（Fitbit Alta、Jawbone Up3、Misfit Shine 2、Polar A360、Samsung Gear Fit2、Xiaomi Mi Band 2）。编辑后的 AW 和未经编辑的 CAM 输出之间比较总睡眠时间（TST）和睡眠后觉醒时间（WASO）。通过配对 t 检验、平均绝对百分比误差（MAPE）计算和组内相关系数（ICC）比较 AW 和 CAM 数据。在 10 名参与者中进行了模型内可靠性测试，这些参与者每人佩戴一对 AW 和 CAM 模型。
与 AW 相比，Fitbit、Jawbone、Misfit 和 Xiaomi 高估了 TST（53.7-80.4 分钟，P ≤.001）。Fitbit、Misfit、Samsung 和 Xiaomi 设备低估了 WASO（15.0-27.9 分钟；P ≤.004），而 Polar 高估了 WASO（27.7 分钟，P ≤.001）。TST 的 MAPE 范围从 5.1%（Samsung）到 25.4%（Misfit），WASO 的 MAPE 范围从 36.6%（Fitbit）到 165.1%（Polar）。TST 的 ICC 范围从 0.00（Polar）到 0.92（Samsung），而 WASO 的 ICC 范围从 0.38（Misfit）到 0.69（Samsung）。在睡眠质量较差的人群（匹兹堡睡眠质量指数全球评分>5；n=10）和睡眠质量较好的人群中，差异相似。模型内可靠性分析显示，成对之间的差异很小，ICC 很高。
CAM 与 AW 之间的一致性因设备而异，TST 的一致性优于 WASO。虽然可靠，但传统活动记录仪的 CAM 数据的一致性存在差异，这可能会使临床或研究目的获得的 CAM 数据的解释复杂化。
