Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • The remaining variables WASO and WE resulted

    2018-10-26

    The remaining variables; WASO and WE, resulted in high correlations between devices, with TEM values of 3.3min and 1.2 (wake episodes), respectively (Table 3). Level of agreement plots showing ±95% limits of agreement between ACT1 and ACT2 for TST, SL and SE are displayed in Fig. 1.
    Discussion The current study was the first to determine the inter-device reliability of a commercially available automatic-scoring actigraph in healthy adult participants by wearing two Readiband™ devices simultaneously. The correlation between devices of the same brand (Readiband™) was very high for the most important sleep variables of total sleep time, sleep latency and sleep efficiency, with no significant differences in any of the measured sleep variables between devices. All differences between the two devices in the current study are deemed to be acceptable according to Werner et al. [17], who stated that a difference between 2 devices of ≤30min can be deemed satisfactory for total sleep time, with a difference <5% for sleep efficiency satisfactory. This suggests that researchers can use multiple devices of the same brand and model within the same study and obtain comparable results. The results in the current study are similar to those described by Dennis et al. [13], who studied the agreement between the Readiband™ and the Micro Mini-Motion Logger actigraphs and reported correlation coefficients of >0.80 for total sleep time and total time in bed. A major limitation of actigraphy methods that require manual sleep scoring, is that it STI571 introduces human error, as opposed to the automatic scoring device used in the current study. Indeed, proposed limitations of the use of actigraphy in sleep research are the inter-scorer reliability or the potential for intra-scorer bias. The use of a computerized scoring algorithm helps to account for both of these factors. Furthermore, the inter-scorer reliability of sleep data using the ‘gold-standard’ PSG, for determining sleep-wake has been studied extensively, with agreements between scorers ranging from 65% to 85% [18,19]. In a large comparative study investigating inter-scorer agreement between sleep laboratories, Norman et al. [20] reported that the level of agreement in sleep indices varies between scorers and between laboratories. Results showed that the level of agreement between laboratories is lower than what can be maintained between scorers within the same laboratory. The authors expressed caution when comparing sleep data scored by experts from separate laboratories [20]. This would suggest that even PSG for detecting sleep-wake, may have reliability issues as well as lacking ecological validity. The foreign environment experienced during PSG monitoring in a sleep laboratory may alter the normal sleeping patterns of an individual [21]. Indeed, differences between at-home and laboratory PSG monitoring have been shown to produce different results [22,23]. The un-natural laboratory environment, combined with the cost of assessment, accessibility of the laboratory and technicians, makes vulva difficult to attain for healthy sleepers wanting to monitor their sleep. For this reason, it has been suggested that sleep monitoring at home, in a familiar environment may be the most appropriate for monitoring normal sleep patterns [23]. Even with at-home PSG monitoring, the comfort of sleeping with multiple electrodes and attachments must be questioned. While PSG monitoring in a laboratory may be important for diagnosing sleep disorders, the basic determination of sleep-wake cycles and sleep efficiency may be adequate for individuals wanting to know more about their sleep hygiene. Therefore, the importance of valid and reliable tools, such as actigraphy, may serve this purpose.
    Conclusion
    Introduction Sleep complaints and sleep disturbances are highly prevalent in neuropsychiatric disorders across the lifespan [1,2]. Up to 80% of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SCZ) report sleep disturbances [3], including increased sleep onset latency, shorter sleep duration (total sleep time) and decreased sleep efficiency [1,2]. Self-reported sleep disturbances are already prevalent in early psychosis and seem to be associated with symptom severity [4].