4.5 Article

Comparison of actigraphy with polysomnography and sleep logs in depressed insomniacs

Journal

JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 122-127

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2011.00917.x

Keywords

actigraphy; depression; insomnia; polysomnography; sleep logs

Funding

  1. NIH [MH70821, M01-RR07122]
  2. Sepracor
  3. Mini Mitter
  4. Sealy
  5. Corcept
  6. Sanofi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Actigraphy is increasingly used in the assessment and treatment of various clinical conditions, being a convenient and cost-effective method of capturing bodily movements over long periods of time. This study examined the use of actigraphy in the measurement of sleep of patients with depression and insomnia. Fifty-four patients diagnosed with a current major depressive episode and chronic insomnia underwent a baseline overnight study with concurrent actigraphic and polysomnography (PSG) monitoring, as well as subjective sleep diaries. Agreement between PSG, actigraphy and sleep diary measurements was evaluated using two-tailed t-tests, Pearsons correlations and the BlandAltman concordance technique. The only significant difference found between actigraphy and PSG was in latency to persistent sleep, in which actigraphy underestimated sleep latency relative to PSG (P < 0.05). There were moderate positive correlations between actigraphy and PSG for all variables. In contrast, significant differences were observed between sleep diaries and PSG for all sleep variables. BlandAltman concordance diagrams also demonstrated that, while bias was limited between PSG and the other two measurement types, there were somewhat broad 95% limits of agreement for all sleep variables with both sleep diaries and actigraphy. In summary, actigraphic measurements of sleep more closely approximated those of PSG than did sleep diaries in this sample of depressed insomniacs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available