↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Consumer Sleep Technology: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position Statement.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 2,410)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
45 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
43 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Consumer Sleep Technology: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position Statement.
Published in
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.5664/jcsm.7128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seema Khosla, Maryann C Deak, Dominic Gault, Cathy A Goldstein, Dennis Hwang, Younghoon Kwon, Daniel O'Hearn, Sharon Schutte-Rodin, Michael Yurcheshen, Ilene M Rosen, Douglas B Kirsch, Ronald D Chervin, Kelly A Carden, Kannan Ramar, R Nisha Aurora, David A Kristo, Raman K Malhotra, Jennifer L Martin, Eric J Olson, Carol L Rosen, James A Rowley

Abstract

Consumer sleep technologies (CSTs) are widespread applications and devices that purport to measure and even improve sleep. Sleep clinicians may frequently encounter CST in practice and, despite lack of validation against gold standard polysomnography, familiarity with these devices has become a patient expectation. This American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement details the disadvantages and potential benefits of CSTs and provides guidance when approaching patient-generated health data from CSTs in a clinical setting. Given the lack of validation and United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance, CSTs cannot be utilized for the diagnosis and/or treatment of sleep disorders at this time. However, CSTs may be utilized to enhance the patient-clinician interaction when presented in the context of an appropriate clinical evaluation. The ubiquitous nature of CSTs may further sleep research and practice. However, future validation, access to raw data and algorithms, and FDA oversight are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Master 11 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 29%
Neuroscience 15 12%
Engineering 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 379. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#81,994
of 25,363,685 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
#39
of 2,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,930
of 340,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
#3
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,685 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.