This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Mobile Health (mhealth) (2748) Registered Report (516) Insomnia and Sleep Hygiene (151) Fitness Trackers and Smart Pedometers/Accelerometers (539) mHealth for Data Collection and Research (907) Wearable Devices and Sensors (811)

Published on in Vol 25 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/42073, first published .
Quality of Sleep Data Validation From the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Against Polysomnography: Comparison Study

Quality of Sleep Data Validation From the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Against Polysomnography: Comparison Study

Quality of Sleep Data Validation From the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Against Polysomnography: Comparison Study

Authors of this article:

Patricia Concheiro-Moscoso1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Betania Groba1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Diego Alvarez-Estevez3 Author Orcid Image ;   María del Carmen Miranda-Duro1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Thais Pousada1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Laura Nieto-Riveiro1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Francisco Javier Mejuto-Muiño4 Author Orcid Image ;   Javier Pereira1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (6) Tweetations (3) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1CITIC-TALIONIS Group, Elviña Campus, Universidade da Coruña (University of A Coruña), A Coruña, Spain

    2Faculty of Health Sciences, Oza Campus, Universidade da Coruña (University of A Coruña), A Coruña, Spain

    3CITIC, Elviña Campus, Universidade da Coruña (University of A Coruña), A Coruña, Spain

    4Clinical Neurophysiology Service, Hospital San Rafael, A Coruña, Spain

    Corresponding Author:

    Betania Groba, PhD

    Faculty of Health Sciences, Oza Campus

    Universidade da Coruña (University of A Coruña)

    A Coruña, 15006

    Spain

    Phone: 34 881015870

    Email: b.groba@udc.es


    Background: Polysomnography is the gold standard for measuring and detecting sleep patterns. In recent years, activity wristbands have become popular because they record continuous data in real time. Hence, comprehensive validation studies are needed to analyze the performance and reliability of these devices in the recording of sleep parameters.

    Objective: This study compared the performance of one of the best-selling activity wristbands, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5, against polysomnography in measuring sleep stages.

    Methods: This study was carried out at a hospital in A Coruña, Spain. People who were participating in a polysomnography study at a sleep unit were recruited to wear a Xiaomi Mi Band 5 simultaneously for 1 night. The total sample consisted of 45 adults, 25 (56%) with sleep disorders (SDis) and 20 (44%) without SDis.

    Results: Overall, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 displayed 78% accuracy, 89% sensitivity, 35% specificity, and a Cohen κ value of 0.22. It significantly overestimated polysomnography total sleep time (P=.09), light sleep (N1+N2 stages of non–rapid eye movement [REM] sleep; P=.005), and deep sleep (N3 stage of non-REM sleep; P=.01). In addition, it underestimated polysomnography wake after sleep onset and REM sleep. Moreover, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 performed better in people without sleep problems than in those with sleep problems, specifically in detecting total sleep time and deep sleep.

    Conclusions: The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 can be potentially used to monitor sleep and to detect changes in sleep patterns, especially for people without sleep problems. However, additional studies are necessary with this activity wristband in people with different types of SDis.

    Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04568408; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04568408

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.3390/ijerph18031106

    J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e42073

    doi:10.2196/42073

    Keywords

    sleep; health promotion; occupation; polysomnography; Xiaomi Mi Band 5; Internet of Things 


    Background

    In recent years, technological advances have made it possible to carry out diverse daily tasks (eg, health management) more quickly, efficiently, and immediately [1,2]. In this context, the Internet of Things is revolutionizing the health care system, allowing daily users to monitor their health status in real time through, for example, wearable devices [2]. Thus, the Internet of Things has spurred a digital social transformation resulting from changes in lifestyle patterns through the connection between everyday life and communication networks [3].

    Activity wristbands have become more popular among consumers because of their usefulness, affordability, and attractive design [4]. Sales of these device have risen in recent years, with approximately 65.1 million units sold worldwide [5]. The technology industry has moved to brand these devices as an increasingly rigorous option for measuring biomedical parameters [4]. Scientific evidence indicates that these wristbands can promote participatory medicine because they encourage people to be active agents in their health management [6]. Moreover, several studies indicate that these devices can help stakeholders to become more aware of their health status and to improve their healthy lifestyle habits [7,8].

    Activity wristbands can collect a myriad of daily health information in the user’s free-living environments [9,10]. Although these devices were designed primarily to record physical activity, companies are increasingly focused on developing algorithms that record other variables such as sleep and its patterns [9,10]. Thus, the use of wristbands not only aims to monitor sleep patterns but also contributes to make the population more aware of sleep relevance [11,12]. In this sense, it is important to know the details of sleep behavior in the population because sleep is a vital part of daily life and a determinant of health and well-being [13-15].

    Polysomnography (PSG) represents the reference method used to measure sleep patterns. Its objective is the diagnosis of sleep problems by assessing the quality and quantity of sleep [16,17]. However, PSG is limited to the clinical setting owing to its cost, invasiveness, the need for specialized professionals, and difficulty functioning in the user’s free-living environment [15,18]. Therefore, clinicians consider actigraphy to be a common alternative to address the drawbacks of PSG [19,20]. Several studies have compared actigraphy with PSG, showing that the former provides high sensitivity in detecting sleep epochs but low specificity in detecting wakefulness [20-22]. Actigraphy has poor accessibility, and a lack of feedback to users hinders its daily use in the general population [11,20]. Nevertheless, it is a validated and accepted tool for detecting certain sleep disorders (SDis) at the clinical and research levels [15,21].

    On the basis of actigraphy, activity wristbands can combine movement signals from an accelerometer and heart rate (HR) variability from sensors to detect sleep-wake cycles [23,24]. Recently, some sleep researchers have considered these devices to be a potential complement to traditional sleep assessment methods because they can sense long-term variations in the circadian rhythm and sleep quantity and quality [4,25,26]. However, previous evidence indicates that the sleep data recorded by these devices are unreliable because they do not accurately detect sleep stages, being more precise in detecting sleep than wakefulness [9,19,27]. Hence, health professionals have stated that data from these devices can lead to excessive concern among consumers about getting optimal sleep, a phenomenon known as orthosomnia [28,29]. In addition, the lack of access to the raw data and algorithms used for sleep parameter measurements raises doubts about their use in clinical and research settings [4,27,30].

    Given the aforementioned limitations, sleep health entities, such as the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), consider it necessary to perform validation studies of activity devices to evaluate their performance and reliability against PSG, which is the gold standard [4,31,32]. In this view, it is relevant that validation studies follow some criteria to assess these devices, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Consumer Technology Association (CTA) standard [33]. This standard is based on 2 levels of compliance to test how the devices classify sleep and wake stages and how they classify sleep stages (wake, rapid eye movement [REM] sleep, light sleep, and deep sleep) [33].

    Few studies have analyzed the sleep data performance of activity wristbands. Most of these studies focused on validation of the Fitbit [34-37], Jawbone UP [10,38], and Oura ring [39,40] devices. In general, compared with PSG, these devices have good accuracy in sleep versus wake differentiation (between 65% and 91%) and high sensitivity (between 96% and 97%) but low specificity (between 42% and 51%) [10,34-39]. These devices overestimate PSG total sleep time (TST) and sleep efficiency (SE), and they underestimate PSG wake after sleep onset (WASO) and sleep onset latency (SOL) [10,34-39,41,42].

    Some of these validated devices can also identify sleep stages, although the Fitbit Charge 2 overestimates PSG N1+N2 stages of non-REM sleep and underestimates N3 stage of non-REM sleep [36,37], whereas the Oura ring overestimates PSG REM sleep and underestimates N3 sleep [39]. In addition, the authors of some comparative studies claim that it is essential to know the performance of these devices in people with SDis, considering that most studies have only included healthy populations [23,34,36]. Kahawage et al [34] and Moreno-Pino et al [36] used the Fitbit Alta HR in a population with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and insomnia. Both studies showed similar concordance against PSG, with high sensitivity and low specificity [34,36].

    According to the literature, it is necessary to continue testing the validity of wearable devices [11,30]. Therefore, this research focused on the Xiaomi Mi Band (Xiaomi Inc), which is one of the most popular activity wristbands on the market owing to its low cost and suitable quality [4,5]. The Xiaomi Mi Band is not a device that is frequently used in scientific research, unlike other devices, such as those manufactured by Fitbit [4,7,9]. However, recent studies have used the Xiaomi Mi Band as an objective tool to record physical activity and sleep in older populations [43-45] and work environments [46,47]. Moreover, previous research compared the sleep data of Xiaomi devices, specifically the Xiaomi Mi Bands 2 and 3, with other devices, concluding that the Xiaomi devices do not correctly identify the TST and WASO periods [9,30]. Nevertheless, researchers have not comprehensively assessed the Xiaomi Mi Band against PSG and specifically analyzed how it records sleep stages in people with SDis as well as those without SDis. Therefore, this study is the first to address validation of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 against PSG.

    Objectives

    This study aimed to compare the performance of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 in measuring the sleep-wake stages compared with PSG performed at a hospital sleep unit. The secondary objectives were (1) to determine the agreement between sleep measures from PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5; (2) to assess the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for classifying sleep and wake stages by the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 compared with PSG; and (3) to determine the performance level of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 for detecting sleep stages (wake, light sleep, deep sleep, and REM sleep) compared with PSG.


    Participants

    This study was carried out from August 4, 2020, to December 10, 2021. Participants were recruited from the sleep unit of a hospital in A Coruña, Spain. These people were attending the sleep unit to participate in a PSG study, intended to detect possible sleep alterations, independent of this project. All participants had access to a study information sheet and provided written informed consent for their participation. The protocol study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (NCT04568408) and published in an international journal, where the design and recruitment process of the study are detailed [48]. The research group maintained the anonymization of all data recorded and obtained from each participant, following and respecting the European (UE 2018/1725) and Spanish (BOE-A-2018-16673) laws on personal data protection at all times.

    A total of 58 people participated in the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 validation project. However, data from 13 (22%) of the 58 participants were not used in the sleep analysis owing to different factors, such as Xiaomi device malfunction (10/13, 77%), not meeting the inclusion criteria (2/13, 15%), and not performing a PSG (1/13, 8%). Therefore, the final sample comprised 45 people (n=23, 51%, men and n=22, 49%, women; aged 23-81 [mean 53.24 SD 15.44] years; BMI mean 27.86, SD 4.44 kg/m2). Of these 45 participants, 25 (56%) were diagnosed with SDis after they had undergone PSG. The sleep diagnoses were OSA syndrome (18/25, 72%), insomnia (4/25, 16%), narcoleptic syndrome (1/25, 4%), a combination of hypersomnia and narcoleptic syndrome (1/25, 4%), and a combination of sleep apnea syndrome and hypoventilation syndrome (1/25, 4%). For this reason, the sleep measures were also analyzed in 2 groups according to whether there were SDis. The demographic characteristics of the No SDis (20/45, 44%) and SDis (25/45, 56%) groups are shown in Table 1.

    Table 1. Sample characteristics (n=45).
    CharacteristicsNo SDisa group (n=20)SDis group (n=25)
    Sex, n (%)

    		Female12 (60)10 (40)

    		Male8 (40)15 (60)
    Age (years), mean (SD)49.7 (14.22)56.08 (16.06)
    BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)26.55 (3.67)28.91 (4.79)
    PSQIb, mean (SD)10.30 (4.66)9.8 (4.07)

    aSDis: sleep disorders.

    bPSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

    Procedure

    All participants slept in the sleep unit for 1 night. On the day of the recording, participants did not drink liquids for 3 hours before PSG, and they attended the sleep unit a few hours earlier to become acquainted with the bedroom. The technical team members of the sleep unit were in charge of supervising, preparing the participants for PSG, and meeting their possible demands. Regarding PSG, the technicians placed the sensors with electrode gel on the participants and connected them to start the test. Participants wore the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 during the recording test, and its location on the wrist was noted by the technicians. During the registration, the technical team members supervised the PSG and the Xiaomi device worn by the participants, making notes and marking alterations that emerged throughout the night for subsequent analysis. The lights-off and lights-on times, temperature, and sound were controlled in the room by the technicians. PSG and Xiaomi data were collected and synchronized simultaneously. The data coincided with the lights-off and lights-on times, providing a record of approximately 8 hours of time in bed (TIB).

    PSG Assessment

    PSG was performed using the NicoletOne v44 Sleep Diagnostic System (Natus Medical Incorporated). This device uses several recordings that included an electroencephalogram (EEG; 6 leads: FP1/FP2, F3/F4, C3/C4, and O1/O2 referenced by the contralateral mastoid), a submental (P3 and P4) and bilateral anterior tibial (2 electrodes on each leg to assess leg movements) electromyogram (EMG), a bilateral electro-oculogram (EOG), and an electrocardiogram (ECG) [16]. EEG, EMG, EOG, and ECG signals were sampled at 256 Hz. The EEG and EOG signals were filtered at 0.3 to 35 Hz, the EMG signal was filtered at 10 to 100 Hz, and the ECG signal was filtered at 0.3 to 70 Hz. At the same time, other biomedical parameters such as respiratory movements and efforts (thoracic and abdominal bands), nasal and oral airflow (nasal cannula), arterial oxygen saturation (pulse oximeter), cardiac activity, and body movement band were recorded to provide relevant information for a potential diagnosis of SDis [16]. PSG parameters were interpreted by the specialized physician of the sleep unit to obtain the cycles and stages of sleep (wake time, N1 sleep, N2 sleep, N3 sleep, and REM sleep) and were scored in 30-second epochs according to the standards of the AASM [49].

    Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 includes a 3-axis accelerometer, a 3-axis gyroscope, an HR sensor, and a photoplethysmography sensor to measure some biomedical parameters. This device contains updated software that continuously records daily activity (eg, steps, distance, activity time, and calories), sleep (eg, light sleep, deep sleep, REM sleep, wake, TST, start and end of the sleep period, and naps), and HR [50]. The device also calculates and classifies the stress level (classified using the terms relaxed, mild, moderate, and high) through HR data. In addition, the wristband requires a series of personal data such as age, sex, weight, height, handedness, and wristband location. The Xiaomi Mi Band connects to its app, the Zepp Life app, via Bluetooth, where the recorded data are transferred and displayed [50]. The Zepp Life app allows the export of activity data (broken down into total activity, minute-by-minute activity, and activity stage), sleep data (start and end sleep periods, WASO, light sleep, deep sleep, and REM sleep), HR data (broken down into total HR; minimum, maximum, and mean HR; and minute-by-minute HR), sports data, and body data in CSV files [50]. In this study, some modes of the Xiaomi device were activated, such as automatic HR, sleep assistant, and night mode, to obtain accurate data and to not disturb the participant. Moreover, there were no problems with the charging of the wristband battery or with the battery itself.

    Processing the PSG and Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Data

    The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG source data were originally available in different formats. The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 data were collected from the Zepp Life app manually and exported to an Excel sheet (Microsoft Corp) because it did not allow downloading of the raw data from the wristband. By contrast, PSG data consisted of CSV text files that contained the manually scored sleep stages and the corresponding reports with clinical sleep diagnostic parameters, available in Word format (Microsoft Corp), both exported using the NicoletOne software. Hence, to enable performance analysis, data were converted into a common format using the European Data Format + (EDF+) [51]. For this purpose, a Python script (version 3.10.5; Python Software Foundation) was developed with help of the PyEDFlib library [52].

    To carry out this process, start time, lights off, lights on, and end of the test markers were set according to the expert annotations available in the corresponding PSG reports. Sleep stages were coded using EDF+ standard texts following the AASM guidelines [49]. For the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 data, it was necessary to adjust the resolution to standard 30-second epochs because the device originally reported on the basis of 1-minute epochs only. This was achieved by splitting each 1-minute epoch into 2 corresponding epochs of 30 seconds each sharing the same sleep stage. Likewise, the Xiaomi hypnogram information does not consider N1 and N2 stages separately. For this reason, epoch-by-epoch (EBE) performance analysis was carried out using a 4-way classification (wake, light sleep, deep sleep or N3, and REM sleep) by merging the corresponding N1 and N2 labels from the PSG in the corresponding light sleep category. Performance analysis was carried out using information within the TIB periods. It should be noted that the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 only starts reporting after the first sleep period is identified by the device; therefore, it is assumed that the periods before the first sleep period and after the last sleep period detected by the device within the TIB period are scored as wakefulness.

    After this process, and using the corresponding EDF+ annotation files, different standard sleep parameters were calculated and compared [53]. More specifically, TIB (calculated in min), total sleep period duration (TSPD; a measure containing the duration of both sleep and wake cycles; min), TST (min), WASO (min), awakenings (number), SOL (min), SE (percentage), light sleep (min), deep sleep (min), REM sleep (min), and awake (min) were analyzed for both the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG in this study. Normative values for some of these parameters have been proposed based on the consensus of a panel of experts regarding objective assessment of sleep quality [41].

    Statistical Analysis

    Statistical analysis was performed using R software (version 4.1.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The analysis was carried out with the total sample (n=45). Likewise, data were analyzed with the participants grouped depending on the existence of SDis to determine the differences between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5.

    Summary measures of PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 equivalents were compared using the paired 2-tailed t test [54] or the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test [54]. The choice of the test was based on whether the data were normally distributed, determined by using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. Normally distributed data were analyzed using the parametric 2-tailed t test, whereas nonnormally distributed data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Moreover, the effect size was measured using Cohen d, classified as 0.2 (small effect), 0.5 (moderate effect), and 0.8 (large effect) [54].

    Furthermore, the Bland-Altman method was used to determine the agreement between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 for each sleep parameter. The mean difference (or bias) between the methods, the SD, the 95% CI, and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (mean observed difference ± 1.96 × SD of observed differences) were calculated. A positive bias indicates that the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 tends to underestimate a variable when compared with the gold standard (PSG). A negative bias indicates that a sleep variable is overestimated [55].

    EBE analysis was performed according to the 2 levels of compliance as provided in the ANSI and CTA performance evaluation guidelines [33]. The first level analyzed the performance of the devices in a 2-way classification for detecting sleep-wake stages using a confusion matrix. For this purpose, accuracy (proportion of correctly classified sleep and wake epochs), sensitivity (proportion of epoch segments identified as sleep by the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 of those classified as sleep by the PSG), specificity (proportion of epoch segments identified as wake by the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 of those classified as wake by PSG), and Cohen κ values (agreement corrected by chance between the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG) were analyzed [33]. The standard label definitions used to classify Cohen κ values were used: 0 to 0.2 (slight), 0.21 to 0.40 (fair), 0.41 to 0.60 (moderate), 0.61 to 0.80 (substantial), and >0.80 (almost perfect) [56]. The second level analyzed how the device detected sleep stages using a 4-way classification (wake, REM sleep, light sleep, and deep sleep). For this purpose, accuracy and Cohen κ values were analyzed [33].

    Ethics Approval

    The study was approved by the A Coruña-Ferrol research ethics committee (2020/318).


    Comparison of PSG and Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Sleep Measures

    The sleep parameters obtained from PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 were compared using the 2-tailed t test or the Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Table 2 provides the sleep outcomes for PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 in the total sample. Overall, there were no significant differences between the methods in the initial sleep onset (P=.27), TSPD (P=.78), and SOL (P=.29) measures. However, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 significantly overestimated PSG TST (z=−2.73; P=.009), the percentage of PSG SE (z=−2.59; P=.03), PSG light sleep (t44=−2.49; P=.005), and PSG deep sleep (t44=−2.58; P=.01). In addition, it underestimated PSG WASO (z=2.96; P=.005), PSG awakenings (z=7.72; P=.001), PSG REM sleep (t44=3.59; P=.001), and PSG awake (z=2.61; P=.01).

    Table 3 shows the results of sleep measures for PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 in the No SDis and SDis groups. There were no significant differences between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 for the initial sleep onset (No SDis: P=.37; SDis: P=.52) and TSPD (No SDis: P=.47; SDis: P=.57) variables in either group. However, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 differed significantly from PSG in the rest of the sleep measures, depending on whether the participants presented or did not present SDis. In the No SDis group, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 overestimated PSG SOL (z=−1.83; P=.046) and PSG light sleep (t19=−3.23; P=.004), and it underestimated PSG awakenings (z=5.50; P<.001) and PSG REM sleep (t19=2.66; P=.02). By contrast, in the SDis group, it overestimated PSG TST (z=−2.70; P=.007), the percentage of PSG SE (z=−2.19; P=.03), and PSG light sleep (t19=−3.97; P<.001), and it underestimated PSG WASO (z=2.35; P=.02), PSG awakenings (z=5.35; P<.001), PSG REM sleep (t19=2.37; P=.03), and PSG awake time (z=3.13; P=.005).

    Table 2. Comparison of polysomnography (PSG) and Xiaomi Mi Band 5 sleep measures in the total sample.

    		PSG, mean (SD; 95% CI)Xiaomi Mi Band 5, mean (SD; 95% CI)t test (df)z scoreaP valueCohen d
    Lights on (hh:mm)07:01 (00:17; 06:56-07:10)—b————
    Lights off (hh:mm)23:36 (00:40; 22:29-01:03)—————
    Initial sleep onset (hh:mm)00:29 (01:31; 22:47-01:33)00:11 (01:05; 23:55-00:31)1.12 (44)—.270.208c
    TIBd (min)443.58 (44.98; 430.07 to457.1)—————
    TSPDe, (min)408.05 (57.13; 390.88-425.23)406.16 (51.27; 390.75-421.56)0.28 (44)—.780.250c
    TSTf (min)344.62 (79.58; 320.71-368.53)374.17 (72.42; 352.42-395.93)—−2.73.009−0.407c
    WASOg (min)63.42 (57.42; 46.17 to80.68)31.99 (51.64; 16.47-47.50)—2.96.0050.442c
    Awakenings (>5 min; number per night)3.64 (2.27; 4.33-2.96)0.69 (0.94; 0.97-0.40)—7.72.0011.15h
    SOLi (min)31.64 (33.97; 21.43-41.84)40.26 (42.59; 27.47-53.06)—−1.07.29−0.206c
    SEj (%)78.32 (16.56; 73.35-83.30)84.14 (15.70; 79.42-88.86)—−2.59.03−0.329c
    Time in N1 stage of non-REMk sleep (min)12.65 (9.21; 9.9-15.42)—————
    Time in N2 stage of non-REM sleep (min)202.14 (57.47; 184.87-219.40)—————
    Time in N1+N2 sleep (light sleep; min)214.79 (55.12; 198.23-231.35)244.62 (56.59; 227.61-261.62)−2.49 (44)—.005−0.439c
    Time in N3 sleep (deep sleep; min)60.72 (29.41; 51.88-69.56)75.37 (31.73; 65.83-84.90)−2.58 (44)—.01−0.385c
    Time in REM sleep (min)69.11 (28.08; 60.67-77.54)49.61 (30.7; 40.01-59.22)3.59 (44)—.0010.536l
    Awake (min)94.86 (71.88; 116.46-73.27)66.51 (66.22; 86.40-46.61)—2.61.010.390c

    aMann-Whitney Wilcoxon test.

    bNot available.

    cSmall effect.

    dTIB: time in bed.

    eTSPD: total sleep period duration.

    fTST: total sleep time.

    gWASO: wake after sleep onset.

    hLarge effect.

    iSOL: sleep onset latency.

    jSE: sleep efficiency.

    kREM: rapid eye movement.

    lModerate effect.

    Table 3. Comparison of polysomnography (PSG) and Xiaomi Mi Band 5 sleep measures in the no sleep disorders (No SDis) and sleep disorders (SDis) groups.


    		PSG, mean (SD; 95% CI)Xiaomi Mi Band 5, mean (SD; 95% CI)t test (df)z scoreaP valueCohen d
    Lights on (hh:mm)

    		No SDis group07:02 (00:11; 06:57-07:07)—b————

    		SDis group07:01 (00:45; 06:52-07:10)—————
    Lights off (hh:mm)

    		No SDis group23:32 (00:48; 23:09-23:54)—————

    		SDis group23:42 (00:32; 23:28-23:55)—————
    Initial sleep onset (hh:mm)

    		No SDis group00:37 (02:00; 23:41-01:33)00:10 (00:56; 23:43-00:37)0.91 (19)—.370.204c

    		SDis group00:22 (01:02; 23:56-00:48)00:12 (01:13; 23:42-00:43)0.64 (24)—.520.230c
    TIBd (min)

    		No SDis group446.66 (50.37; 423.09-470.24)—————

    		SDis group441.12 (41.06; 424.16-458.07)—————
    TSPDe (min)

    		No SDis group442.80 (42.35; 402.97-442.62)410.56 (50.66; 386.84-434.27)2.12 (19)—.470.475c

    		SDis group396.26 (65.11; 369.38-423.13)402.64 (52.51; 380.96-424.32)−0.58 (24)—.57−0.508f
    TSTg (min)

    		No SDis group363.55 (68.20; 331.63-395.47)378.26 (70.98; 345.04-411.49)−0.83 (19)—.41−0.208c

    		SDis group329.48 (85.97; 293.99-364.97)370.90 (74.84; 340.00-401.79)—−2.70.007−0.625f
    WASOh (min)

    		No SDis group59.25 (56.44; 32.83-85.66)32.30 (54.31; 6.87-57.71)—1.98.120.361c

    		SDis group66.77 (59.14; 42.36-91.18)31.75 (50.53; 10.89-52.61)—2.35.020.504f
    Awakenings (>5 min; number per night)

    		No SDis group3.90 (2.38; 5.01-2.78)0.65 (0.98; 1.11-0.18)—5.50<.0011.20i

    		SDis group3.44 (2.22; 4.35-2.52)0.72 (0.93; 1.10-0.33)—5.35<.0011.07i
    SOLj (min)

    		No SDis group26.47 (15.19; 19.36-33.58)38.75 (32.46; 23.56-53.95)—−1.83.05−0.478c

    		SDis group35.78 (43.50; 17.82-53.73)41.48 (49.88; 20.89-62.07)—−0.25.80−0.474c
    SEk (%)

    		No SDis group81.02 (13.67; 74.63-87.42)84.61 (15.24; 77.47-91.74)—−1.46.37−0.206c

    		SDis group76.17 (18.56; 68.51-83.83)83.77 (16.36; 77.02-90.53)—−2.19.03−0.421c
    Time in N1 stage of non-REMl sleep (min)

    		No SDis group13.85 (10.05; 9.14-18.55)—————

    		SDis group11.70 (8.56; 8.16-15.23)—————
    Time in N2 stage of non-REM sleep (min)

    		No SDis group198.74 (52.72; 174.06-223.42)—————

    		SDis group204.86 (61.95; 179.28-230.43)—————
    Time in N1+N2 sleep (light sleep; min)

    		No SDis group212.59 (48.09; 190.08-235.10)254.63 (52.78; 229.93-279.33)−3.23 (19)—.004−0.724f

    		SDis group216.56 (61.09; 191.34-241.77)236.59 (59.29; 212.12-261.07)−1.34 (24)—.19−0.268c
    Time in N3 sleep (deep sleep; min)

    		No SDis group77.05 (20.68; 67.37-86.73)73.88 (30.54; 59.59-88.17)0.42 (19)—.67−0.345c

    		SDis group47.66 (29.11; 35.64-59.67)76.55 (33.22; 62.84-90.27)−3.97 (24)—<.001−0.796f
    Time in REM sleep (min)

    		No SDis group73.90 (23.56; 62.88-84.94)49.85 (27.20; 37.12-62.58)2.66 (19)—.020.597f

    		SDis group65.26 (31.17; 52.39-78.13)49.43 (35.89; 34.62-64.24)2.37 (24)—.030.475c
    Awake (min)

    		No SDis group85.72 (62.81; 115.12-56.33)71.01 (73.04; 105.21-36.83)—0.83.420.218c

    		SDis group102.18 (78.90; 134.75-69.61)60.77 (62.39; 86.53-35.01)—3.13.0050.625f

    aMann-Whitney Wilcoxon test.

    bNot available.

    cSmall effect.

    dTIB: time in bed.

    eTSPD: total sleep period duration.

    fModerate effect.

    gTST: total sleep time.

    hWASO: wake after sleep onset.

    iLarge effect.

    jSOL: sleep onset latency.

    kSE: sleep efficiency.

    lREM: rapid eye movement.

    Bland-Altman Plots

    Table 4 shows Bland-Altman biases, SDs, 95% CIs, and the upper and lower Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement. Figure 1 presents Bland-Altman plots for the main sleep measures. In the total sample, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 significantly overestimated PSG TST by 29.54 minutes, PSG SE by 5.82%, PSG light sleep by 29.81 minutes, and PSG deep sleep by 14.64 minutes. By contrast, it underestimated PSG WASO by 31.44 minutes, PSG awakenings by 2.95 epochs, PSG REM sleep by 19.49 minutes, and PSG awake time by 28.36 minutes.

    There were also differences between the sleep groups. The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 significantly overestimated PSG light sleep by 42.02 minutes and PSG SOL by 12.28 minutes in the No SDis group. In addition, it underestimated PSG awakenings by 3.25 epochs and PSG REM sleep by 24.05 minutes in this group. However, in the SDis group, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 overestimated PSG TST by 41.41 minutes, PSG SE by 7.6%, and PSG deep sleep by 28.89 minutes. In addition, it underestimated PSG WASO by 35.03 minutes, PSG awakenings by 2.72 epochs, PSG REM sleep time by 15.83 minutes, and PSG awake time by 41.41 minutes.

    On average, the Bland-Altman agreement limits were exceeded every 4 and 2 participants for the total sample, especially in TST, WASO, awakenings, and SE measures. The participants with sleep problems were the ones who mainly exceeded these aggregation limits.

    Table 4. Bland-Altman parameters for the comparison between polysomnography and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 in the total sample as well as the no sleep disorders (No SDis) and sleep disorders (SDis) groups.

    		Bias (SD; 95% CI)Agreement limitsNumber of participants exceeding the agreement limits, n (%)
    Initial sleep onset (hh:mm)

    		Total sample00:17 (01:44; 00:49 to 00:13)−03:06 to 03:402 (4)a

    		No SDis group00:27 (02:13; 01:29 to 00:35)−01:36 to 02:302 (10)b

    		SDis group00:09 (01:17; 00:41 to 00:21)−02:22 to 02:400 (0)c
    TSTd (min)

    		Total sample−29.54 (72.54; −7.75 to 51.33)−171.72 to 112.633 (7)a

    		No SDis group−14.71 (78.94; −51.66 to 22.23)−169.44 to 140.011 (5)b

    		SDis group−41.41 (66.20; −68.73 to 14.08)−171.18 to 88.362 (8)c
    TSPDe (min)

    		Total sample1.89 (44.97; −11.61 to 15.40)−86.25 to 90.041 (2)a

    		No SDis group12.24 (25.75; 0.19 to 24.29)−38.24 to 62.730 (0)b

    		SDis group−6.38 (54.97; −29.07 to 16.31)−114.14 to 101.371 (4)c
    WASOf (min)

    		Total sample31.44 (71.13; 10.07 to 52.81)−107.97 to 170.864 (9)a

    		No SDis group26.96 (61.92; −8.00 to 61.93)−119.47 to 173.401 (5)b

    		SDis group35.03 (69.48; 6.35 to 63.71)−101.15 to 171.213 (12)c
    Awakenings (>5 min; number per night)

    		Total sample2.95 (2.57; 3.73 to 2.18)−2.07 to 3.734 (9)a

    		No SDis group3.25 (2.63; 4.48 to 2.01)−1.91 to 8.413 (15)b

    		SDis group2.72 (2.54; 3.77 to 1.67)−2.26 to 7.701 (4)c
    SOLg (min)

    		Total sample−8.62 (53.76; −24.77 to 7.53)−114.00 to 96.752 (4)a

    		No SDis group−12.28 (25.69; −24.31 to 0.26)−62.65 to 38.080 (0)b

    		SDis group−5.7 (68.97; −34.17 to 22.77)−140.88 to 129.482 (8)c
    SEh (%)

    		Total sample−5.82 (17.67; −11.13 to 0.51)−40.46 to 28.824 (9)a

    		No SDis group−3.85 (17.37; −11.71 to 4.54)−37.63 to 30.462 (10)b

    		SDis group−7.60 (18.06; −15.06 to 0.14)−43.00 to 27.802 (8)c
    Time in N1+N2 sleep (light sleep; min)

    		Total sample−29.81 (67.98; −50.24 to 9.39)−163.07 to 103.442 (4)a

    		No SDis group−42.04 (58.04; −69.20 to 14.87)−155.81 to 71.720 (0)b

    		SDis group−20.03 (74.72; −50.88 to 10.81)−166.49 to 126.422 (8)c
    Time in N3 sleep (deep sleep; min)

    		Total sample−14.64 (59.97; −26.08 to 3.20)−89.27 to 59.980 (0)a

    		No SDis group3.17 (33.00; −12.28 to 18.62)−61.53 to 67.860 (0)b

    		SDis group−28.89 (36.32; −43.88 to 13.90)−100.08 to 36.320 (0)c
    Time in REMi sleep (min)

    		Total sample19.49 (36.40; 8.55 to 30.42)−51.85 to 90.842 (4)a

    		No SDis group24.05 (40.30; 5.20 to 42.92)−54.93 to 103.050 (0)b

    		SDis group15.83 (33.34; 2.07 to 29.60)−49.52 to 81.202 (8)c
    Awake (min)

    		Total sample28.36 (72.69; 50.20 to 6.52)−114.11 to 170.843 (7)a

    		No SDis group14.71 (78.93; 51.65 to 22.23)−140.00 to 169.432 (10)b

    		SDis group41.41 (66.21; 14.08 to 68.74)−88.36 to 171.181 (4)c

    an=45.

    bn=20.

    cn=25.

    dTST: total sleep time.

    eTSPD: total sleep period duration.

    fWASO: wake after sleep onset.

    gSOL: sleep onset latency.

    hSE: sleep efficiency.

    iREM: rapid eye movement.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Bland-Altman plots for initial sleep onset, total sleep time (TST), total sleep period duration (TSPD), wake after sleep onset (WASO), awakenings, sleep onset latency (SOL), sleep efficiency (SE), light sleep, deep sleep, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and awake time. The PSG-Xiaomi Mi Band 5 differences for sleep parameters (y-axis) are plotted as a function of the PSG-Xiaomi Mi Band 5 means (x-axis) for sleep parameters. Circles represent participants without sleep disorders (No SDis group; n=20), and triangles represent participants with sleep disorders (SDis group; n=25). Zero lines are marked and represent perfect agreement. The dotted lines represent the biases and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (mean observed difference ± 1.96 × SD of observed differences). PSG: polysomnography.

    EBE Analysis

    Tables 5-7 show the confusion matrices resulting from the 2-way (wake vs sleep) classification of 30-second epochs between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5. Results are shown separately for the total sample as well as for the No SDis and SDis groups.

    Table 5. Confusion matrix for the 2-way (wake vs sleep) epoch-by-epoch classification for the total sample.

    		Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    		WakeSleep
    PSGa

    		Wake30195525

    		Sleep323827,786

    aPSG: polysomnography.

    Table 6. Confusion matrix for the 2-way (wake vs sleep) epoch-by-epoch classification for the no sleep disorders group.

    		Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    		WakeSleep
    PSGa

    		Wake13052117

    		Sleep152813,018

    aPSG: polysomnography.

    Table 7. Confusion matrix for 2-way (wake vs sleep) epoch-by-epoch classification for the sleep disorders group.

    		Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    		WakeSleep
    PSGa

    		Wake17143408

    		Sleep171014,786

    aPSG: polysomnography.

    According to the results, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 correctly classified both sleep and wake epochs in 30,805 (77.85%) of the 39,568 available epochs. It correctly detected 27,786 (89.56%) of the 31,024 sleep epochs, thus resulting in 0.90 sensitivity for the sleep class, and it was able to identify 3019 (35.33%) of the 8544 wake stages, leading to a corresponding 0.35 specificity for the wake class. Because of the binary classification, we derive immediately the respective sensitivity and specificity values for the wake class as 0.35 and 0.90. On the basis of the Cohen κ value, the level of concordance between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 was 0.22.

    These results were similar in the No SDis and SDis groups. The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 had an accuracy of 0.80 and 0.76 in the No SDis group and the SDis group, respectively. The sensitivity for the sleep class was 0.89 for both groups, and the corresponding sensitivity was 0.38 for the No SDis group and 0.33 for the SDis group. The Cohen κ values for the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 were 0.27 in the No SDis group and 0.26 in the SDis group.

    Tables 8-10 show the corresponding confusion matrices for the 4-way sleep stage classification between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5. In general, the accuracy level was 0.44. More specifically, the agreement with PSG was 0.48 for the detection of wakefulness, 0.51 for light sleep, 0.33 for deep sleep, and 0.26 for REM sleep. The No SDis and SDis groups had outcomes similar to those of the total sample. Moreover, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 misidentified PSG epochs 40% to 70% of the time. It should be noted that the Xiaomi device misclassified 3957 (46.31%) of the 8544 wake epochs and 4044 (65.01%) of the 6221 REM sleep stages as light sleep in the total sample. In addition, it misclassified 1945 (65.38%) of the 2975 and 2099 (64.31%) of the 3264 REM sleep epochs in the No SDis group and the SDis group, respectively, as light sleep.

    Table 11 shows that the Cohen κ coefficients for the 4-way epoch classification ranged between 0.11 and 0.15 for agreement between PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 among the 3 groups, indicating that most of the accuracy agreement was due to chance.

    Table 8. Confusion matrix for 4-way (wake, light sleep, deep sleep, and rapid eye movement [REM] sleep) epoch-by-epoch classification for the total sample.

    		Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    		WakeLight sleepDeep sleepREM
    PSGa

    		Wake301939571020548

    		Light sleep223611,36634682274

    		Deep sleep53726531775494

    		REM46540445191193

    aPSG: polysomnography.

    Table 9. Confusion matrix for 4-way (wake, light sleep, deep sleep, and rapid eye movement [REM] sleep) epoch-by-epoch classification for the no sleep disorders group.

    		Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    		WakeLight sleepDeep sleepREM
    PSGa

    		Wake13051630272215

    		Light sleep872514214381055

    		Deep sleep4221469982209

    		REM2341945263515

    aPSG: polysomnography.

    Table 10. Confusion matrix for 4-way (wake, light sleep, deep sleep, and rapid eye movement [REM] sleep) epoch-by-epoch classification for the sleep disorders group.

    		Xiaomi Mi Band 5

    		WakeLight sleepDeep sleepREM
    PSGa

    		Wake17142327748333

    		Light sleep1364622420301219

    		Deep sleep1151184793285

    		REM2312099256678

    aPSG: polysomnography.

    Table 11. Overall accuracy and Cohen κ statistics for 2-way and 4-way epoch-by-epoch classifications for the total sample as well as the no sleep disorders (No SDis) and sleep disorders (SDis) groups.

    		2-Way epoch-by-epoch classification4-Way epoch-by-epoch classification

    		Accuracy, mean (SD)Cohen κa, mean (SD)Accuracy, mean (SD)Cohen κ, mean (SD)
    Total sample0.78 (0.13)0.22 (0.23)0.44 (0.10)0.12 (0.13)
    No SDis 0.80 (0.13)0.27 (0.21)0.45 (0.10)0.15 (0.12)
    SDis0.76 (0.12)0.26 (0.25)0.43 (0.10)0.11 (0.14)

    aCohen κ: 0 to 0.2 (slight), 0.21 to 0.40 (fair), 0.41 to 0.60 (moderate), 0.61 to 0.80 (substantial), and >0.80 (almost perfect).


    Principal Findings

    The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 is one of the most popular wristbands among consumers around the world [4,5]. Its use has increased because it can continuously record different parameters, including sleep [4,5]. Nevertheless, it was not developed for clinical or scientific purposes in the diagnosis of SDis or sleep monitoring, a factor that could influence its performance [11,28]. Thus, we considered it necessary to determine the quality and accuracy of sleep data obtained from this device by comparing it against PSG performed at a clinical sleep unit. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has validated the ability of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 to measure sleep parameters in people with SDis as well as those without SDis.

    This study investigated the agreement in sleep measures from PSG and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5. Overall, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 had some limitations in the detection of several sleep measures. There were no significant differences detected among initial sleep onset, TSPD, and SOL measures compared with PSG. However, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 significantly overestimated TST, SE, light sleep, and deep sleep. It also significantly underestimated WASO, the number of awakenings, REM sleep, and awake time. These results are similar to those of previous studies that validated activity wristbands such as the Fitbit Alta HR [34], Fitbit Charge HR [57], Fitbit Charge 2 [37], and Jawbone UP [38].

    The Bland-Altman analysis showed the biases between the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG in general, which ranged from 1.89 to 31.44 minutes. Unlike other devices, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 more accurately estimated some summary measures of sleep compared with PSG (Multimedia Appendix 1). PSG TST was overestimated by 25 to 30 minutes more by the Jawbone UP (59.10 min) [38] and the Fitbit Alta HR (53.33 min) [34] than by the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 (29.54 min). Moreover, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 overestimated PSG light sleep by 29.81 minutes, but the Fitbit Charge 2 overestimated it by 34 minutes [37]. Likewise, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 underestimated PSG WASO by 31.44 minutes and PSG awake time by 28.36 minutes, whereas the Fitbit Alta HR underestimated WASO by 48.37 minutes and awake time by 41.93 minutes [34,36]. By contrast, WASO was underestimated 25.85 minutes [35] less by Fitbit Charge HR (5.6 min) than by the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 (31.44 min).

    Furthermore, 2 studies evaluated previous versions of the Xiaomi wristband against other devices [9,30]. However, the authors did not comprehensively compare the sleep parameters of the Xiaomi devices against PSG. Ameen et al [30] used the Xiaomi Mi Band 2 alongside other devices to determine the reliability of sleep data, concluding that the Xiaomi device overestimated TST by 69.64 minutes and SE by 13.25%, and it underestimated WASO by 33.57 minutes. Topalidis et al [9] compared sleep data from the Xiaomi Mi Band 3 and GT3X scientific actigraphy devices, showing low concordance among the devices in the wake periods and TST. Thus, these authors report results that are similar to ours, but TST, SE, and WASO sleep measurement estimates by the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 were more accurate than those in the previous Xiaomi versions [9,30].

    The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (Table 4) were generally high, especially for the TST, WASO, the number of awakenings, and SE variables. These limits are similar to those reported in studies that compared the Jawbone UP or the Fitbit Alta HR with PSG [34,38]. However, they differ from those obtained in the Fitbit Charge 2 wristband or the Oura ring validation studies, whose limits of agreement were narrower for all sleep measures [37,39]. In this study, between 9% (4/45) and 4% (2/45) of the participants exceeded the limits of agreement, mainly for the TST, WASO, the number of awakenings, and SE measures. In fact, some of these participants (3/45, 7%) coincide with the disagreement on the limits on these sleep measures. Likewise, several studies have reported a similar number of participants (8%-12% of the participants) who exceeded the aggregation limits [35,38,39].

    The Xiaomi Mi Band 5 showed an accuracy of 78% for identifying sleep and wake stages and a sensitivity of 89% for detecting sleep epochs. However, it showed a specificity of only 35%. These findings are similar to those of previous studies, highlighting that, in general, these devices have high accuracy and sensitivity but low specificity [37,38,58]. However, Cohen κ analysis revealed that most of the accuracy was due to chance (Cohen κ=0.22), with 78% (31,024/39,568) of all available epochs in the total sample belonging to the sleep class according to PSG. Regarding this aspect, some authors suggest that poor detection of wakefulness time could be due to difficulties the wristbands have in detecting periods of immobility [11,39,59].

    Furthermore, this study analyzed the Xiaomi Mi Band 5’s level of performance regarding the identification of sleep stages using a 4-way EBE classification. The device obtained an accuracy of 44% for this task. Specifically, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 was more accurate in detecting wake (48%) and light sleep (51%) than in identifying deep sleep (34%) and REM sleep (28%), misclassifying these stages as light sleep and misclassifying light sleep as REM sleep on several occasions and, to a lesser extent, as deep sleep. Overall, other validated devices seem to have greater accuracy in identifying sleep stages than the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 [11,37,39,60], except for the Fitbit Charge 2, which showed lower accuracy in detecting deep sleep (49%) than the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 [37].

    Cohen κ corrects the agreement owing to chance between the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG. Overall, the obtained values hovered between 0.11 and 0.27 for the different 2-way (wake vs sleep) and 4-way stage classifications and patient groups. Thus, the levels of agreement between the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG were slight to fair. Conversely, other authors reported that the Fitbit Alta HR and the Fitbit Charge 2 devices had Cohen κ coefficients ranging from 0.52 to 0.66, indicating a moderate agreement with PSG [36,37,61].

    Experts who have validated other devices have concluded the need to focus on people with sleep problems owing to their increased prevalence during the COVID-19 pandemic [14,62]. The existing literature that validated these devices in people with sleep problems reflects the myriad difficulties that come with measuring sleep parameters [34,36,58]. In this study, the total sample was divided into 2 groups, namely one with SDis and one without SDis. Both groups presented similar results for the initial sleep onset and TSPD measures, showing only slight biases with the PSG measures. However, in the rest of the measures, there were relevant differences between the 2 sleep groups. Specifically, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 showed almost no variation compared with PSG for the TST, SE, deep sleep, and awake time variables in the No SDis group. However, in the SDis group, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 overestimated several parameters compared with PSG, namely TST and deep sleep by 28 to 41 minutes and SE by 7.6% in the SDis group. In addition, it underestimated PSG WASO more in the SDis group than in the No SDis group.

    The estimations of these sleep measures are consistent with those made by the Jawbone or Fitbit devices in a group of people with SDis [36,38]. However, the Jawbone and Fitbit biases compared with PSG are greater than those obtained in this study [36,38]. Conversely, unlike the No SDis group, the SDis group did not present significant differences with PSG in the variables light sleep and SOL. In addition, PSG REM sleep was mainly underestimated in the No SDis group rather than in the SDis group.

    Moreover, both groups presented similar results regarding the performance of sleep and wake stage detection, but participants with SDis presented lower values. Overall, Cohen κ coefficients were also lower in the SDis group. Specifically, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 misidentified more epochs in the SDis group than in the No SDis group. The device misclassified light sleep epochs as awake, deep sleep, and REM sleep epochs in the SDis group and to a lesser extent in the No SDis group.

    Overall, the outcomes obtained from people without SDis were a bit more accurate in some sleep measures and sleep stages. Consistent with the literature, devices such as the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 may be an alternative for health management in people without SDis because the data are more reliable than in people with SDis [8,11,41,61].

    However, the outcomes of the SDis group could have been influenced by the inclusion of multiple SDis (rather than a single disorder), with OSA being the most prevalent syndrome. Similar to the results of other studies, the performance of this activity wristband can be lower among people diagnosed with OSA. There are reports that devices such as the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 had worse outcomes in this population than in populations with other conditions [36]. In this study, the biases between the Xiaomi device and PSG differed between participants with OSA and those with other SDis (Multimedia Appendix 2). Our results show better performance in detecting sleep and wake stages, but higher biases were detected for sleep variables in the other SDis group.

    Limitations

    There are some limitations that could have negatively influenced the main findings of this study. The first limitation is attrition: only 45 of the 58 participants completed the study. Participants did not complete the study owing to difficulties with the use of the wristband and data collection. Hence, the sample was heterogeneous, and the size of the groups (SDis and No SDis) was small. In addition, how the participants were monitored might have influenced the data because this was not done in the usual context in which people sleep. Moreover, participants should be followed up for more days for better assessment of the performance of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5.

    This study includes other limitations. Specifically, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and other devices only combine movement and HR to classify sleep parameters, whereas PSG includes several sensors; therefore, the accuracy of the data collected by wearable devices could be lower than that of the data collected by PSG. These devices present more limitations in the detection of WASO, light sleep, and REM sleep. Moreover, it would be necessary to have access to raw data in 30-second epochs and to the algorithm that Xiaomi uses to classify the data; this additional information would improve data analysis [11]. Although synchronization of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and PSG was simultaneous, there may be certain deviations that could affect the results of the study, specifically those obtained in the EBE analysis [11].

    Conclusions

    In conclusion, the very popular Xiaomi Mi Band 5 may be an acceptable activity wristband in terms of quality and price. Moreover, its use can promote greater awareness of the importance of sleep and promote good healthy lifestyle habits so that people obtain more quality sleep. Likewise, this device could be considered a tool to monitor sleep and to screen changes in sleep patterns through which health professionals could determine the quality and quantity of people’s sleep. Specifically, it could be a potential tool for use in populations without SDis, especially to identify TST and deep sleep. Future research must study the performance of this device in various populations, such as people with OSA, insomnia, narcolepsy, parasomnias, and other health conditions.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participants who kindly agreed to be part of this study, as well as to the clinical staff working at the sleep unit with whom they have worked closely. The authors disclose the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this paper: all economic costs involved in the study were borne by the research team. This work is supported in part by some grants from the European Social Fund 2014-2020: Centre for Information and Communications Technology Research (CITIC; Research Center of the Galician University System). Grant support for CITIC was provided by the Xunta de Galicia through a collaboration agreement between the Regional Ministry of Culture, Education, and Vocational Training and the Galician Universities for the work of the Research Centers of the Galician University System and the Handytronic chair. PCM obtained a scholarship to develop the PhD thesis (ED481A-2019/069). DAE received funding from the project ED431H 2020/10 of the Xunta de Galicia. In addition, this work is supported in part by structural support for the consolidation and structuring of competitive research units and other promotion actions in the universities of the Galician University System, in the public research organizations of Galicia, and other entities of the Galician R&D&I System for 2022 (ED431B-2022/39); “Quality of life for caregivers through a person-centered technological solution” (TED2021-130127A-I00) associated with the “projects oriented to the ecological transition and digital transition” in the framework of the state program to promote scientific-technical research and its transfer, according to the state plan for scientific, technical, and innovation research 2021-2023; and the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación R&D&I projects in the framework of the national programs of knowledge generation and scientific and technological strengthening of the R&D&I system and challenges of the call R&D&I 2019 oriented to society (PID2019-104323RB-C33).

    Authors' Contributions

    The study was conceptualized by JP, PCM, and BG. JP, FJMM, PCM, DAE, and BG were responsible for the methodology. JP, FJMM, PCM, DAE, and BG were responsible for the investigation. PCM and MCMD wrote the original draft. JP, BG, DAE, LNR, and TP reviewed and edited the manuscript. PCM and MCMD were responsible for visualization. JP, BG, LNR, DAE, TP, and FJMM were responsible for supervision. JP, BG, LNR, TP, and FJMM were responsible for project administration. PCM was responsible for funding acquisition. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Summary of the main findings of the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 and other devices.

    DOCX File , 30 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Analysis of data according to the type of sleep disorder.

    DOCX File , 44 KB
    1. Boop C, Cahill SM, Davis C, Dorsey J, Gibbs V, Herr B. Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process fourth edition. Am J Occup Ther 2020 Aug 15;74(Supplement_2):7412410010p1-741241001087. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Selvaraj S, Sundaravaradhan S. Challenges and opportunities in IoT healthcare systems: a systematic review. SN Appl Sci 2020 Jan 30;2(1):139 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    3. Safdar Z, Farid S, Qadir M, Asghar K, Iqbal J, Hamdani FK. A novel architecture for internet of things based e-Health systems. J Med Imaging Health Inform 2020 Oct 01;10(10):2378-2388 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    4. Bent B, Goldstein BA, Kibbe WA, Dunn JP. Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors. NPJ Digit Med 2020 Feb 10;3:18 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Worldwide quarterly wearable device tracker. International Data Corporation. 2021.   URL: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P31315 [accessed 2022-07-04]
    6. Nieto-Riveiro L, Groba B, Miranda MC, Concheiro P, Pazos A, Pousada T, et al. Technologies for participatory medicine and health promotion in the elderly population. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018 May;97(20):e10791 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Sadek I, Demarasse A, Mokhtari M. Internet of things for sleep tracking: wearables vs. nonwearables. Health Technol 2020;10(1):333-340 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    8. Chong KP, Guo JZ, Deng X, Woo BK. Consumer perceptions of wearable technology devices: retrospective review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 Apr 20;8(4):e17544 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Topalidis P, Florea C, Eigl ES, Kurapov A, Leon CA, Schabus M. Evaluation of a low-cost commercial actigraph and its potential use in detecting cultural variations in physical activity and sleep. Sensors (Basel) 2021 May 29;21(11):3774 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Kubala AG, Barone Gibbs B, Buysse DJ, Patel SR, Hall MH, Kline CE. Field-based measurement of sleep: agreement between six commercial activity monitors and a validated accelerometer. Behav Sleep Med 2020 Sep;18(5):637-652 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. de Zambotti M, Cellini N, Goldstone A, Colrain IM, Baker FC. Wearable sleep technology in clinical and research settings. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2019 Jul;51(7):1538-1557 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Borger JN, Huber R, Ghosh A. Capturing sleep-wake cycles by using day-to-day smartphone touchscreen interactions. NPJ Digit Med 2019 Jul 29;2:73 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Tester NJ, Foss JJ. Sleep as an occupational need. Am J Occup Ther 2018 Jan;72(1):7201347010p1-7201347010p4. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Hale L, Troxel W, Buysse DJ. Sleep health: an opportunity for public health to address health equity. Annu Rev Public Health 2020 Apr 02;41:81-99 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Perez-Pozuelo I, Zhai B, Palotti J, Mall R, Aupetit M, Garcia-Gomez JM, et al. The future of sleep health: a data-driven revolution in sleep science and medicine. NPJ Digit Med 2020 Mar 23;3:42 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Jafari B, Mohsenin V. Polysomnography. Clin Chest Med 2010 Jun;31(2):287-297. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Zhang X, Kou W, Chang EI, Gao H, Fan Y, Xu Y. Sleep stage classification based on multi-level feature learning and recurrent neural networks via wearable device. Comput Biol Med 2018 Dec 01;103:71-81. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Massar SA, Chua XY, Soon CS, Ng AS, Ong JL, Chee NI, et al. Trait-like nocturnal sleep behavior identified by combining wearable, phone-use, and self-report data. NPJ Digit Med 2021 Jun 02;4(1):90 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Mahadevan N, Christakis Y, Di J, Bruno J, Zhang Y, Dorsey ER, et al. Development of digital measures for nighttime scratch and sleep using wrist-worn wearable devices. NPJ Digit Med 2021 Mar 03;4(1):42 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Li X, Zhao H. Automated feature extraction from population wearable device data identified novel loci associated with sleep and circadian rhythms. PLoS Genet 2020 Oct 19;16(10):e1009089 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Bélanger MÈ, Bernier A, Paquet J, Simard V, Carrier J. Validating actigraphy as a measure of sleep for preschool children. J Clin Sleep Med 2013 Jul 15;9(7):701-706 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Girschik J, Fritschi L, Heyworth J, Waters F. Validation of self-reported sleep against actigraphy. J Epidemiol 2012;22(5):462-468 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Svetnik V, Wang TC, Ceesay P, Snyder E, Ceren O, Bliwise D, et al. Pilot evaluation of a consumer wearable device to assess sleep in a clinical polysomnography trial of suvorexant for treating insomnia in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Sleep Res 2021 Dec;30(6):e13328 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Roberts DM, Schade MM, Mathew GM, Gartenberg D, Buxton OM. Detecting sleep using heart rate and motion data from multisensor consumer-grade wearables, relative to wrist actigraphy and polysomnography. Sleep 2020 Jul 13;43(7):zsaa045 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Crowley O, Pugliese L, Kachnowski S. The impact of wearable device enabled health initiative on physical activity and sleep. Cureus 2016 Oct 11;8(10):e825 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Wan J, Gu X, Chen L, Wang J. Internet of things for ambient assisted living: challenges and future opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery. 2017 Presented at: CyberC '17; October 12-14, 2017; Nanjing, China p. 354-357.
    27. Van de Water AT, Holmes A, Hurley DA. Objective measurements of sleep for non-laboratory settings as alternatives to polysomnography--a systematic review. J Sleep Res 2011 Mar;20(1 Pt 2):183-200 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Baron KG, Abbott S, Jao N, Manalo N, Mullen R. Orthosomnia: are some patients taking the quantified self too far? J Clin Sleep Med 2017 Feb 15;13(2):351-354 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Singh J, Keer N. Overview of telemedicine and sleep disorders. Sleep Med Clin 2020 Sep;15(3):341-346 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Ameen MS, Cheung LM, Hauser T, Hahn MA, Schabus M. About the accuracy and problems of consumer devices in the assessment of sleep. Sensors (Basel) 2019 Sep 25;19(19):4160 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Shelgikar AV, Anderson PF, Stephens MR. Sleep tracking, wearable technology, and opportunities for research and clinical care. Chest 2016 Sep;150(3):732-743. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Khosla S, Deak MC, Gault D, Goldstein CA, Hwang D, Kwon Y, American Academy of Sleep Medicine Board of Directors. Consumer sleep technology: an American academy of sleep medicine position statement. J Clin Sleep Med 2018 May 15;14(5):877-880 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Consumer Technology Association, Approved American National Standards, National Sleep Foundation. Performance Criteria and Testing Protocols for Features in Sleep Tracking Consumer Technology Devices and Applications (ANSI/CTA/NSF-2052.3). Arlington, VA, USA: Consumer Technology Association; Apr 2019.
    34. Kahawage P, Jumabhoy R, Hamill K, de Zambotti M, Drummond SP. Validity, potential clinical utility, and comparison of consumer and research-grade activity trackers in insomnia disorder I: in-lab validation against polysomnography. J Sleep Res 2020 Feb;29(1):e12931 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. de Zambotti M, Baker FC, Willoughby AR, Godino JG, Wing D, Patrick K, et al. Measures of sleep and cardiac functioning during sleep using a multi-sensory commercially-available wristband in adolescents. Physiol Behav 2016 May 01;158:143-149 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Moreno-Pino F, Porras-Segovia A, López-Esteban P, Artés A, Baca-García E. Validation of Fitbit charge 2 and Fitbit Alta HR against polysomnography for assessing sleep in adults with obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 2019 Nov 15;15(11):1645-1653 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. de Zambotti M, Goldstone A, Claudatos S, Colrain IM, Baker FC. A validation study of Fitbit charge 2™ compared with polysomnography in adults. Chronobiol Int 2018 Apr;35(4):465-476. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Danzig R, Wang M, Shah A, Trotti LM. The wrist is not the brain: estimation of sleep by clinical and consumer wearable actigraphy devices is impacted by multiple patient- and device-specific factors. J Sleep Res 2020 Feb;29(1):e12926 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. de Zambotti M, Rosas L, Colrain IM, Baker FC. The sleep of the ring: comparison of the ŌURA sleep tracker against polysomnography. Behav Sleep Med 2019 Mar;17(2):124-136 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Asgari Mehrabadi M, Azimi I, Sarhaddi F, Axelin A, Niela-Vilén H, Myllyntausta S, et al. Sleep tracking of a commercially available smart ring and smartwatch against medical-grade actigraphy in everyday settings: instrument validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 Nov 02;8(10):e20465 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Ohayon M, Wickwire EM, Hirshkowitz M, Albert SM, Avidan A, Daly FJ, et al. National sleep foundation's sleep quality recommendations: first report. Sleep Health 2017 Feb;3(1):6-19 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Wulterkens BM, Fonseca P, Hermans LW, Ross M, Cerny A, Anderer P, et al. It is all in the wrist: wearable sleep staging in a clinical population versus reference polysomnography. Nat Sci Sleep 2021 Jun 28;13:885-897 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Pino-Ortega J, Gómez-Carmona CD, Rico-González M. Accuracy of Xiaomi Mi band 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 to measure step count and distance for physical activity and healthcare in adults over 65 years. Gait Posture 2021 Jun;87:6-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. de la Casa Pérez A, Latorre Román PÁ, Muñoz Jiménez M, Lucena Zurita M, Laredo Aguilera JA, Párraga Montilla JA, et al. Is the Xiaomi Mi band 4 an accuracy tool for measuring health-related parameters in adults and older people? An original validation study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 Jan 30;19(3):1593 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Miranda-Duro MD, Nieto-Riveiro L, Concheiro-Moscoso P, Groba B, Pousada T, Canosa N, et al. Analysis of older adults in Spanish care facilities, risk of falling and daily activity using Xiaomi Mi band 2. Sensors (Basel) 2021 May 11;21(10):3341 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Concheiro-Moscoso P, Groba B, Martínez-Martínez FJ, Miranda-Duro MD, Nieto-Riveiro L, Pousada T, et al. Study for the design of a protocol to assess the impact of stress in the quality of life of workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021 Feb 03;18(4):1413 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Queirós C, Oliveira S, Monteiro Fonseca S, Marques AJ. Stress at work and physiological indicators: a study with wearable sensors. Psicol Saúde Doença 2020 Mar;21(01):183-190. [CrossRef]
    48. Concheiro-Moscoso P, Martínez-Martínez FJ, Miranda-Duro MD, Pousada T, Nieto-Riveiro L, Groba B, et al. Study protocol on the validation of the quality of sleep data from Xiaomi domestic wristbands. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021 Jan 27;18(3):1106 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Berry RB, Brooks R, Gamaldo CE, Harding SM, Lloyd RM, Marcus CL, et al. The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology and Technical Specifications, Version 2.2. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Darien, IL, USA: American Academy of Sleep Medicine; 2015.   URL: https://aasm.org/clinical-resources/scoring-manual/ [accessed 2022-06-29]
    50. Mi Smart Band 5. Xiaomi Inc.   URL: https://v12.mi.com/es/mi-smart-band-5/ [accessed 2022-03-17]
    51. Kemp B, Olivan J. European data format 'plus' (EDF+), an EDF alike standard format for the exchange of physiological data. Clin Neurophysiol 2003 Sep;114(9):1755-1761. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Lee-Messer C. PyEDFlib -EDF/BDF toolbox in Python: PYEDFlib documentation. PyEDFlib. 2021.   URL: https://pyedflib.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ [accessed 2022-07-29]
    53. Berry RB, Budhiraja R, Gottlieb DJ, Gozal D, Iber C, Kapur VK, American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Rules for scoring respiratory events in sleep: update of the 2007 AASM manual for the scoring of sleep and associated events. Deliberations of the sleep apnea definitions task force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. J Clin Sleep Med 2012 Oct 15;8(5):597-619 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307-310. [Medline]
    55. Bunce C. Correlation, agreement, and Bland-Altman analysis: statistical analysis of method comparison studies. Am J Ophthalmol 2009 Jul;148(1):4-6. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977 Mar;33(1):159-174 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    57. Lee JM, Byun W, Keill A, Dinkel D, Seo Y. Comparison of wearable trackers' ability to estimate sleep. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018 Jun 15;15(6):1265 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Markwald RR, Bessman SC, Reini SA, Drummond SP. Performance of a portable sleep monitoring device in individuals with high versus low sleep efficiency. J Clin Sleep Med 2016 Jan;12(1):95-103 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Inbal-Shamir T, Kali Y. The relation between schoolteachers' perceptions about collaborative learning and their employment of online instruction. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. 2007 Presented at: CSCL'07; July 16-21, 2007; New Brunswick, NJ, USA p. 295-303   URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1599600.1599656 [CrossRef]
    60. Xie J, Wen D, Liang L, Jia Y, Gao L, Lei J. Evaluating the validity of current mainstream wearable devices in fitness tracking under various physical activities: comparative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Apr 12;6(4):e94 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Lee XK, Chee NI, Ong JL, Teo TB, van Rijn E, Lo JC, et al. Validation of a consumer sleep wearable device with actigraphy and polysomnography in adolescents across sleep opportunity manipulations. J Clin Sleep Med 2019 Sep 15;15(9):1337-1346 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Czeisler MÉ, Capodilupo ER, Weaver MD, Czeisler CA, Howard ME, Rajaratnam SM. Prior sleep-wake behaviors are associated with mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic among adult users of a wearable device in the United States. Sleep Health 2022 Jun;8(3):311-321 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AASM: American Academy of Sleep Medicine
    ANSI: American National Standards Institute
    CTA: Consumer Technology Association
    EBE: epoch-by-epoch
    ECG: electrocardiogram
    EDF+: European Data Format +
    EEG: electroencephalogram
    EMG: electromyogram
    EOG: electro-oculogram
    HR: heart rate
    OSA: obstructive sleep apnea
    PSG: polysomnography
    REM: rapid eye movement
    SDis: sleep disorders
    SE: sleep efficiency
    SOL: sleep onset latency
    TIB: time in bed
    TSPD: total sleep period duration
    TST: total sleep time
    WASO: wake after sleep onset

    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 22.08.22; peer-reviewed by V Aguiar-Pulido, X Li; comments to author 12.10.22; revised version received 02.11.22; accepted 03.03.23; published 19.05.23

    Copyright

    ©Patricia Concheiro-Moscoso, Betania Groba, Diego Alvarez-Estevez, María del Carmen Miranda-Duro, Thais Pousada, Laura Nieto-Riveiro, Francisco Javier Mejuto-Muiño, Javier Pereira. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 19.05.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.