4.2 Article

Sleep estimation using BodyMedia's SenseWear (TM) armband in patients with obstructive sleep apnea

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 53-57

Publisher

SAUDI THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.4103/1817-1737.105720

Keywords

Actigraphy; armband; polysomnography; portable monitoring; sleep apnea; sleep duration; sleep-disordered breathing; type 4 sleep study

Funding

  1. National Plan for Sciences and Technology (King Saud University)
  2. National Plan for Sciences and Technology (King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the validity of the BodyMedia's SenseWear (TM) Armband (BSA) device in estimating total sleep time (TST) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods: Simultaneous overnight recordings of in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) and BSA were performed on (1) 107 OSA patients (mean age of 45.2 +/- 14.3 years, mean apnea hypopnea index of 43 +/- 35.7/hr and (2) 30 controls matched with OSA patients for age and body mass index. An agreement analysis between the PSG and BSA scoring results was performed using the Bland and Altman method. Results: There was no significant difference in OSA patients between BSA and PSG with regard to TST, total wake time, and sleep efficiency. There was also no significant difference in the controls between BSA and PSG with regard to TST, total wake time, and sleep efficiency. Bland Altman plots showed strong agreement between TST, wake time, and sleep efficiency for both OSA and the controls. The intraclass correlation coefficients revealed perfect agreement between BSA and PSG in different levels of OSA severity and both genders. Conclusion: The current data suggest that BSA is a reliable method for determining sleep in patients with OSA when compared against the gold standard test (PSG). BSA can be a useful tool in determining sleep in patients with OSA and can be combined with portable sleep studies to determine TST.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available