Metrology of two wearable sleep trackers against polysomnography in patients with sleep complaints.

Sleep trackers are used widely by patients with sleep complaints, however their metrological validation is often poor and relies on healthy subjects. We assessed the metrological validity of two commercially available sleep trackers (Withings Activité/Fitbit Alta HR) through a prospective observational monocentric study, in adult patients referred for polysomnography (PSG). We compared the total sleep time (TST), REM time, REM latency, nonREM1 + 2 time, nonREM3 time, and wake after sleep onset (WASO). We report absolute and relative errors, Bland-Altman representations, and a contingency table of times spent in sleep stages with respect to PSG. Sixty-five patients were included (final sample size 58 for Withings and 52 for Fitbit). Both devices gave a relatively accurate sleep start time with a median absolute error of 5 (IQR -43; 27) min for Withings and -2.0 (-12.5; 4.2) min for Fitbit but both overestimated TST. Withings tended to underestimate WASO with a median absolute error of -25.0 (-61.5; -8.5) min, while Fitbit tended to overestimate it (median absolute error 10 (-18; 43) min. Withings underestimated light sleep and overestimated deep sleep, while Fitbit overestimated light and REM sleep and underestimated deep sleep. The overall kappas for concordance of each epoch between PSG and devices were low: 0.12 (95%CI 0.117-0.121) for Withings and VPSG indications 0.07 (95%CI 0.067-0.071) for Fitbit, as well as kappas for each VPSG indication 0.07 (95%CI 0.067-0.071). Thus, commercially available sleep trackers are not reliable for sleep architecture in patients with sleep complaints/pathologies and should not replace actigraphy and/or PSG.

Relevant Biomarkers in Medical Practices: An Analysis of the Needs Addressed by an International Survey.

(1) Backround: Technological advances should foster gains in physicians' efficiency. For example, a reduction of the medical decision time can be enabled by faster biological tests. The main objective of this study was to collect responses from an international panel of physicians on their needs for biomarkers and also to convey the improvement in the outcome to be made possible by the potential development of fast diagnostic tests for these biomarkers. (2) Methods: we distributed a questionnaire on the Internet to physicians. (3) Results: 508 physicians participated in this survey. The mean age was 38 years. General practice and emergency medicine were heavily represented, with 95% CIs of 44% (39.78, 48.41) and 32% (27.84, 35.94)), respectively. The two most represented countries were France (95% CI: 74% (70.20, 77.83)) and the USA (95% CI: 11% (8.65, 14.18)). Ninety-eight percentages of the physicians thought that obtaining cited biomarkers more quickly would be beneficial to their practice and to patient's care. The main biomarkers of interest identified by our panel were troponin (95% CI: 51% (46.24, 54.94)), C-reactive protein (95% CI: 42% (38.03, 46.62)), D-dimer (95% CI: 29% (24.80, 32.68)), and brain natriuretic peptide (95% CI: 13% (10.25, 16.13)). (4) Conclusions: Our study highlights the real technological need for fast biomarker results, which could be provided by biosensors. The relevance of some answers such as troponin is questionable.