Abstract

Study Objectives: Actigraphy devices are used in sleep medicine. The Actiwatch 2 (Philips Respironics) was an example of a frequently used device in this field. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of this device has led to an increased necessity for the implementation of other available actigraphy methods capable of providing objective information. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of the new ActTrust 2 compared to the Actiwatch 2 model. Methods: This observational prospective study included 9 participants (77.760 activity logs) who were monitored for 7 days using 2 actigraphy wrist devices (ActTrust 2 and Actiwatch 2) simultaneously. The following variables were evaluated: midline estimating statistic of rhythm, amplitude, and acrophase; intradaily variability; interdaily stability; relative amplitude; and the mean of 5 consecutive hours with the lowest activity and the 10 consecutive hours with the highest activity. Furthermore, total sleep time, time in bed, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, and awakenings were also included. Results: Actigraphy models indicated statistically significant differences in activity levels. Regarding the analysis of circadian rest–activity rhythms, 10 consecutive hours with the highest activity, midline estimating statistic of rhythm, and amplitude also exhibited these differences. Furthermore, the analysis of sleep–wakefulness revealed significant differences in the sleep onset latency and the number of awakenings. Conclusions: The ActTrust 2 and Actiwatch 2 models showed equivalent results in measuring circadian rest–activity rhythm and sleep. However, caution is advised when interpreting parameters such as midline estimating statistic of rhythm, amplitude, sleep onset latency, awakenings, and 10 consecutive hours with the highest activity variables. © 2025 American Academy of Sleep Medicine. All rights reserved.