Performance assessment of new-generation Fitbit technology in deriving sleep parameters and stages

ABSTRACT We compared performance in deriving sleep variables by both Fitbit Charge 2™, which couples body movement (accelerometry) and heart rate variability (HRV) in combination with its proprietary interpretative algorithm (IA), and standard actigraphy (Motionlogger® Micro Watch Actigraph: MMWA), which relies solely on accelerometry in combination with its best performing ‘Sadeh’ IA, to electroencephalography (EEG: Zmachine® Insight+ and its proprietary IA) used as reference. We conducted home sleep studies on 35 healthy adults, 33 of whom provided complete datasets of the three simultaneously assessed technologies. Relative to the Zmachine EEG method, Fitbit showed an overall Kappa agreement of 54% in distinguishing wake/sleep epochs and sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 57% in detecting sleep epochs. Fitbit, relative to EEG, underestimated sleep onset latency (SOL) by ~11 min and overestimated sleep efficiency (SE) by ~4%. There was no statistically significant difference between Fitbit and EEG methods in measuring wake after sleep onset (WASO) and total sleep time (TST). Fitbit showed substantial agreement with EEG in detecting rapid eye movement and deep sleep, but only moderate agreement in detecting light sleep. The MMWA method showed 51% overall Kappa agreement with the EEG one in detecting wake/sleep epochs, with sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 53% in detecting sleep epochs. MMWA, relative to EEG, underestimated SOL by ~10 min. There was no significant difference between Fitbit and MMWA methods in amount of bias in estimating SOL, WASO, TST, and SE; however, the minimum detectable change (MDC) per sleep variable with Fitbit was better (smaller) than with MMWA, respectively, by ~10 min, ~16 min, ~22 min, and ~8%. Overall, performance of Fitbit accelerometry and HRV technology in conjunction with its proprietary IA to detect sleep vs. wake episodes is slightly better than wrist actigraphy that relies solely on accelerometry and best performing Sadeh IA. Moreover, the smaller MDC of Fitbit technology in deriving sleep parameters in comparison to wrist actigraphy makes it a suitable option for assessing changes in sleep quality over time, longitudinally, and/or in response to interventions.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  D. Plante,et al.  Ability of the Fitbit Alta HR to quantify and classify sleep in patients with suspected central disorders of hypersomnolence: A comparison against polysomnography , 2018, Journal of sleep research.

[3]  Daniel J Buysse,et al.  The Pittsburgh sleep quality index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research , 1989, Psychiatry Research.

[4]  G. Jean-Louis,et al.  Sleep estimation from wrist movement quantified by different actigraphic modalities , 2001, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[5]  F. Zijlstra,et al.  Sleep quantity, sleep difficulties and their perceived consequences in a representative sample of some 2000 British adults , 2004, Journal of sleep research.

[6]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[7]  K. Diller,et al.  Accuracy of PurePulse photoplethysmography technology of Fitbit Charge 2 for assessment of heart rate during sleep , 2019, Chronobiology international.

[8]  K. Loparo,et al.  Evaluation of an automated single-channel sleep staging algorithm , 2015, Nature and science of sleep.

[9]  Garrett I. Ash,et al.  Agreement between actigraphic and polysomnographic measures of sleep in adults with and without chronic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, Sleep medicine reviews.

[10]  R. Hermida,et al.  Asleep blood pressure: significant prognostic marker of vascular risk and therapeutic target for prevention , 2018, European heart journal.

[11]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  The American Academy of Sleep Medicine inter-scorer reliability program: sleep stage scoring. , 2013, Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

[12]  A. Petrie,et al.  Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. , 2010, Theriogenology.

[13]  Kenneth R Diller,et al.  Accuracy of Wristband Fitbit Models in Assessing Sleep: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2019, Journal of medical Internet research.

[14]  H. Montgomery-Downs,et al.  Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device , 2012, Sleep and Breathing.

[15]  E. van Cauter,et al.  Trends in the prevalence of short sleepers in the USA: 1975-2006. , 2010, Sleep.

[16]  D. Hurley,et al.  Objective measurements of sleep for non‐laboratory settings as alternatives to polysomnography – a systematic review , 2011, Journal of sleep research.

[17]  R. Furberg,et al.  Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[18]  D. J. Mullaney,et al.  Automatic sleep/wake identification from wrist activity. , 1992, Sleep.

[19]  Job G. Godino,et al.  Measures of sleep and cardiac functioning during sleep using a multi-sensory commercially-available wristband in adolescents , 2016, Physiology & Behavior.

[20]  H. Colten,et al.  Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation: An Unmet Public Health Problem , 2006 .

[21]  Kenneth A Loparo,et al.  Performance evaluation of an automated single-channel sleep–wake detection algorithm , 2014, Nature and science of sleep.

[22]  Z Beattie,et al.  Estimation of sleep stages in a healthy adult population from optical plethysmography and accelerometer signals , 2017, Physiological measurement.

[23]  S. Julius,et al.  Heart rate and the cardiovascular risk , 1997, Journal of hypertension.

[24]  K. Kario,et al.  Prognostic impact from clinic, daytime, and night-time systolic blood pressure in nine cohorts of 13 844 patients with hypertension , 2014, Journal of hypertension.

[25]  K. Avis,et al.  Comparison of a Commercial Accelerometer with Polysomnography and Actigraphy in Children and Adolescents. , 2015, Sleep.

[26]  Emily G Lattie,et al.  Feeling validated yet? A scoping review of the use of consumer-targeted wearable and mobile technology to measure and improve sleep. , 2017, Sleep medicine reviews.

[27]  A. Goldstone,et al.  A validation study of Fitbit Charge 2™ compared with polysomnography in adults , 2018, Chronobiology international.

[28]  Clayon B Hamilton,et al.  Accuracy of Fitbit Devices: Systematic Review and Narrative Syntheses of Quantitative Data , 2018, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[29]  Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala,et al.  Sleep problems: an emerging global epidemic? Findings from the INDEPTH WHO-SAGE study among more than 40,000 older adults from 8 countries across Africa and Asia. , 2012, Sleep.

[30]  Kenneth R Diller,et al.  Performance comparison of different interpretative algorithms utilized to derive sleep parameters from wrist actigraphy data , 2019, Chronobiology international.

[31]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[32]  A. Sadeh,et al.  Activity-based sleep-wake identification: an empirical test of methodological issues. , 1994, Sleep.

[33]  J. Steiner,et al.  Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 2006 .