Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare two commercial sleep devices, an accelerometer worn as a wristband (UP by Jawbone) and a smartphone application (MotionX 24/7), against polysomnography (PSG) and actigraphy (Actiwatch2) in a clinical pediatric sample. METHODS: Children and adolescents (n = 78, 65% male, mean age 8.4 ± 4.0 y) with suspected sleep disordered breathing (SDB), simultaneously wore an actiwatch, a commercial wrist-based device and had a smartphone with a sleep application activated placed near their right shoulder, during their diagnostic PSG. Outcome variables were sleep onset latency (SOL), total sleep time (TST), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep efficiency (SE). Paired comparisons were made between PSG, actigraphy, UP, and MotionX 24/7. Epoch-by-epoch comparisons determined sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between PSG, actigraphy, and UP. Bland-Altman plots determined level of agreement. Differences in bias between SDB severity and developmental age were assessed. RESULTS: No differences in mean TST, WASO, or SE between PSG and actigraphy or PSG and UP were found. Actigraphy overestimated SOL (21 min). MotionX 24/7 underestimated SOL (12 min) and WASO (63 min), and overestimated TST (106 min) and SE (17%). UP showed good sensitivity (0.92) and accuracy (0.86) but poor specificity (0.66) when compared to PSG. Bland-Altman plots showed similar levels of bias in both actigraphy and UP. Bias did not differ by SDB severity, however was affected by age. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to PSG, UP was analogous to Actiwatch2 and may have some clinical utility in children with sleep disordered breathing. MotionX 24/7 did not accurately reflect sleep or wake and should be used with caution.