ReviewChest2026
Real-World Use of Consumer Sleep Devices: A Rapid Review.
Review in Chest, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
topic importanceAs awareness of sleep's role in health grows, consumer sleep technologies (CSTs) have gained wide use among both researchers and the public. These devices offer continuous, noninvasive sleep tracking in real-world environments. However, understanding their accuracy compared with that of polysomnography (PSG), the gold standard in sleep measurement, remains limited, particularly in free-living settings and clinical populations. Assessing CST performance and usability in these contexts is essential for guiding future adoption. REVIEW
findingsThis review identified 29 studies evaluating CSTs in ambulatory settings. CSTs showed moderate accuracy in estimating total sleep time and time in bed but lower precision for sleep efficiency, wake after sleep onset, and stage classification. Rapid eye movement and deep sleep estimates were particularly unreliable. Multi-sensor devices modestly improved basic sleep-wake detection, and contactless devices offered lower user burden but limited portability. Few studies included clinical populations such as individuals with insomnia, depression, or older adults. Only a small number explored CSTs in intervention delivery, and integration into clinical care remains minimal. SUMMARY: CSTs may support general sleep monitoring under real-world conditions, especially for duration and circadian timing. However, accuracy remains limited for sleep staging and fragmentation, and most devices have not been validated in diverse or clinical populations. Ongoing improvements in device design, signal integration, and algorithm transparency are needed to enhance CST reliability and clinical relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.