Affiliation:
1. Facultad de Enfermería, Universidad Católica de Valencia “San Vicente Mártir”, Valencia, Spain
2. Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
3. Departamento de Enfermería; Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Abstract
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.
Subject
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine,General Neuroscience
Reference76 articles.
1. Sleep devices;American Sleep Association (ASA),2017
2. Polysomnography;Armon,2016
3. A validation of wrist actigraphy against polysomnography in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder;Baandrup;Journal of Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment,2015
4. The maintenance of wakefulness test in normal healthy subjects;Banks;Sleep,2004
5. Is there a clinical role for smartphone seep apps? Comparison of sleep cycle detection by a smartphone application to polysomnography;Bhat;Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine,2015
Cited by
184 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献