English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Consumer home sleep trackers are gaining popularity for objective sleep monitoring. Amongst them, non-wearable devices have little disruption in daily routine and need little maintenance. However, the validity of their sleep outcomes needs further investigation. In this study, the accuracy of the sleep outcomes of EMFIT Quantified Sleep (QS), an unobtrusive and non-wearable ballistocardiograph sleep tracker, was evaluated by comparing it with polysomnography (PSG). Methods 62 sleep lab patients underwent a single clinical PSG and their sleep measures were simultaneously collected through PSG and EMFIT QS. Total Sleep Time (TST), Wake After Sleep Onset (WASO), Sleep Onset Latency (SOL) and average Heart Rate (HR) were compared using paired t-tests and agreement analysed using Bland-Altman plots. Results EMFIT QS data loss occurred in 47% of participants. In the remaining 33 participants (15 females, with mean age of 53.7±16.5), EMFIT QS overestimated TST by 177.5±119.4 minutes (p&amp;lt;0.001) and underestimated WASO by 44.74±68.81 minutes (p&amp;lt;0.001). It accurately measured average resting HR and was able to distinguish SOL with some accuracy. However, the agreement between EMFIT QS and PSG on sleep-wake detection was very low (kappa=0.13, p&amp;lt;0.001). Discussion A consensus between PSG and EMFIT QS was found in SOL and average HR. There was a significant discrepancy and lack of consensus between the two devices in other sleep outcomes. These findings indicate that while EMFIT QS is not a credible alternative to PSG for sleep monitoring in clinical and research settings, consumers may find some benefit from longitudinal monitoring of SOL and HR.

P062 Sleep parameter validation of a home-based ballistocardiograph sleep tracker