Study record · validation · 2018

How well does a commercially available wearable device measure sleep in young athletes?

Sargent C, Lastella M, Romyn G, Versey N, Miller DJ, and Roach GD

Chronobiology International, 35(6), 754-758 · 2018

Why this study matters to CircaTest

Important athlete-population validation. The 52-minute mean overestimation with ±152 min SD shows just how variable Fitbit overestimation can be on a per-night basis, which CircaTest's accuracy guide uses to discourage over-interpretation of single-night sleep scores from any wrist-worn device.

Abstract

The validity of a commercially available wearable device for measuring total sleep time was examined in a sample of well-trained young athletes during night-time sleep periods and daytime naps.…

Read the full abstract on the source →

Source: PUBMED · Excerpt for fair-use commentary; full abstract via the source link

Population

Age

young athletes

Reference standard

psg

Well-trained young athletes; 30 night-time sleep periods and 20 daytime naps recorded with concurrent in-lab PSG and Fitbit Charge HR.

Devices and metrics

Fitbit Charge HR

All studies for this device →

Metric	Value	95% CI	Note
Bias (minutes)	52 min	—	TST overestimation, night-time sleep, mean ± 152 min SD.
Bias (minutes)	4 min	—	TST overestimation, daytime naps, mean ± 8 min SD.

Cite this study

Sargent C, Lastella M, Romyn G, Versey N, Miller DJ, and Roach GD (2018). How well does a commercially available wearable device measure sleep in young athletes?. Chronobiology International, 35(6), 754-758. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2018.1466800

AI-assembled record · errors are possible

This page was built and is maintained by AI working from the published abstract and PubMed metadata for the cited study. CircaTest does not have access to the full text of every paper in its corpus. Categories of error that have happened on this site and could happen again include:

Per-device metric values inferred when the abstract reports only an aggregate range
Stage-specific accuracy figures pulled from secondary sources rather than the primary paper
Sample size or population characteristics missing from the abstract
Editorial framing in the curatorial note that overstates the study's actual scope
Year typos and author-name transliteration errors

Where a metric value reads see source, the published abstract did not contain that value and CircaTest deliberately left it null rather than guess. For any decision that depends on the underlying numbers, please consult the linked PubMed, PMC, or DOI source directly. Corrections are welcome via the about page.

Source links

Added to the CircaTest meta-analysis on 2026-04-06. How CircaTest evaluates studies →