4.4 Review

Use of Actigraphy for the Evaluation of Sleep Disorders and Circadian Rhythm Sleep-Wake Disorders: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 1209-1230

出版社

AMER ACAD SLEEP MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.7228

关键词

actigraphy; circadian rhythm; sleep disorders; systematic review

资金

  1. American Academy of Sleep Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review is to provide supporting evidence for a clinical practice guideline on the use of actigraphy. Methods: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compared the use of actigraphy, sleep logs, and/or polysomnography. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of using actigraphy as an objective measure of sleep and circadian parameters. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ( GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for making recommendations. Results: The literature search resulted in 81 studies that met inclusion criteria; all 81 studies provided data suitable for statistical analyses. These data demonstrate that actigraphy provides consistent objective data that is often unique from patient-reported sleep logs for some sleep parameters in adult and pediatric patients with suspected or diagnosed insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, central disorders of hypersomnolence, and adults with insufficient sleep syndrome. These data also demonstrate that actigraphy is not a reliable measure of periodic limb movements in adult and pediatric patients. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据