OBJECTIVE: The present study explores the clinical utility and sensitivity of actigraphy as an outcome measure in the treatment of @entity22 . DESIGN: Following a screening-adaptation night, polysomnography, actigraphy, and sleep-diary data were collected in the sleep laboratory for 2 baseline nights and 2 posttreatment nights. SETTING: A university-affiliated @entity25 center. @entity1 : Seventeen @entity1 with chronic @entity22 . Mean age was 41.6 years. INTERVENTIONS: @entity1 took part in a treatment protocol investigating different sequential treatments for @entity22 (these results are reported elsewhere). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Compared to polysomnography, both actigraphy and sleep-diary instruments underestimated total sleep time and sleep efficiency and overestimated total wake time. Also, actigraphy underestimated sleep-onset latency while the sleep diary overestimated it as compared to polysomnography. Actigraphy data were more accurate than sleep-diary data when compared to polysomnography. Finally, actigraphy was sensitive in detecting the effects of treatment on several sleep parameters. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that actigraphy is a useful device for measuring treatment response and that it should be used as a complement to sleep-diary evaluation.

Actigraphy in the assessment of XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['participants', 'Participants', 'PARTICIPANTS'] @entity25 :: ('MESH:D012893', 'Disease') :: ['sleep disorders'] @entity22 :: ('MESH:D007319', 'Disease') :: ['primary insomnia', 'chronic insomnia', 'insomnia']
@entity22 :: (MESH:D007319,Disease) :: ['insomnia']
