Cargando…

A survey on sleep assessment methods

PURPOSE: A literature review is presented that aims to summarize and compare current methods to evaluate sleep. METHODS: Current sleep assessment methods have been classified according to different criteria; e.g., objective (polysomnography, actigraphy…) vs. subjective (sleep questionnaires, diaries...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ibáñez, Vanessa, Silva, Josep, Cauli, Omar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5971842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29844990
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4849
_version_ 1783326343135494144
author Ibáñez, Vanessa
Silva, Josep
Cauli, Omar
author_facet Ibáñez, Vanessa
Silva, Josep
Cauli, Omar
author_sort Ibáñez, Vanessa
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: A literature review is presented that aims to summarize and compare current methods to evaluate sleep. METHODS: Current sleep assessment methods have been classified according to different criteria; e.g., objective (polysomnography, actigraphy…) vs. subjective (sleep questionnaires, diaries…), contact vs. contactless devices, and need for medical assistance vs. self-assessment. A comparison of validation studies is carried out for each method, identifying their sensitivity and specificity reported in the literature. Finally, the state of the market has also been reviewed with respect to customers’ opinions about current sleep apps. RESULTS: A taxonomy that classifies the sleep detection methods. A description of each method that includes the tendencies of their underlying technologies analyzed in accordance with the literature. A comparison in terms of precision of existing validation studies and reports. DISCUSSION: In order of accuracy, sleep detection methods may be arranged as follows: Questionnaire < Sleep diary < Contactless devices < Contact devices < Polysomnography A literature review suggests that current subjective methods present a sensitivity between 73% and 97.7%, while their specificity ranges in the interval 50%–96%. Objective methods such as actigraphy present a sensibility higher than 90%. However, their specificity is low compared to their sensitivity, being one of the limitations of such technology. Moreover, there are other factors, such as the patient’s perception of her or his sleep, that can be provided only by subjective methods. Therefore, sleep detection methods should be combined to produce a synergy between objective and subjective methods. The review of the market indicates the most valued sleep apps, but it also identifies problems and gaps, e.g., many hardware devices have not been validated and (especially software apps) should be studied before their clinical use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5971842
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59718422018-05-29 A survey on sleep assessment methods Ibáñez, Vanessa Silva, Josep Cauli, Omar PeerJ Global Health PURPOSE: A literature review is presented that aims to summarize and compare current methods to evaluate sleep. METHODS: Current sleep assessment methods have been classified according to different criteria; e.g., objective (polysomnography, actigraphy…) vs. subjective (sleep questionnaires, diaries…), contact vs. contactless devices, and need for medical assistance vs. self-assessment. A comparison of validation studies is carried out for each method, identifying their sensitivity and specificity reported in the literature. Finally, the state of the market has also been reviewed with respect to customers’ opinions about current sleep apps. RESULTS: A taxonomy that classifies the sleep detection methods. A description of each method that includes the tendencies of their underlying technologies analyzed in accordance with the literature. A comparison in terms of precision of existing validation studies and reports. DISCUSSION: In order of accuracy, sleep detection methods may be arranged as follows: Questionnaire < Sleep diary < Contactless devices < Contact devices < Polysomnography A literature review suggests that current subjective methods present a sensitivity between 73% and 97.7%, while their specificity ranges in the interval 50%–96%. Objective methods such as actigraphy present a sensibility higher than 90%. However, their specificity is low compared to their sensitivity, being one of the limitations of such technology. Moreover, there are other factors, such as the patient’s perception of her or his sleep, that can be provided only by subjective methods. Therefore, sleep detection methods should be combined to produce a synergy between objective and subjective methods. The review of the market indicates the most valued sleep apps, but it also identifies problems and gaps, e.g., many hardware devices have not been validated and (especially software apps) should be studied before their clinical use. PeerJ Inc. 2018-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5971842/ /pubmed/29844990 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4849 Text en ©2018 Ibáñez et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Global Health
Ibáñez, Vanessa
Silva, Josep
Cauli, Omar
A survey on sleep assessment methods
title A survey on sleep assessment methods
title_full A survey on sleep assessment methods
title_fullStr A survey on sleep assessment methods
title_full_unstemmed A survey on sleep assessment methods
title_short A survey on sleep assessment methods
title_sort survey on sleep assessment methods
topic Global Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5971842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29844990
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4849
work_keys_str_mv AT ibanezvanessa asurveyonsleepassessmentmethods
AT silvajosep asurveyonsleepassessmentmethods
AT cauliomar asurveyonsleepassessmentmethods
AT ibanezvanessa surveyonsleepassessmentmethods
AT silvajosep surveyonsleepassessmentmethods
AT cauliomar surveyonsleepassessmentmethods