ArticleDer Nervenarzt2018
[Digital electroencephalography in brain death diagnostics : Technical requirements and results of a survey on the compatibility with medical guidelines of digital EEG systems from providers in Germany].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective evaluation of interrater agreement between EEG technologists and neurophysiologists.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- [Diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function ("brain death")-what is new?]Der Nervenarzt · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe guidelines of the German Medical Association and the German Society for Clinical Neurophysiology and Functional Imaging (DGKN) require a high procedural and technical standard for electroencephalography (EEG) as an ancillary method for diagnosing the irreversible cessation of brain function (brain death). Nowadays, digital EEG systems are increasingly being applied in hospitals. So far it is unclear to what extent the digital EEG systems currently marketed in Germany meet the guidelines for diagnosing brain death.
methodsIn the present article, the technical und safety-related requirements for digital EEG systems and the EEG documentation for diagnosing brain death are described in detail. On behalf of the DGKN, the authors sent out a questionnaire to all identified distributors of digital EEG systems in Germany with respect to the following technical demands: repeated recording of the calibration signals during an ongoing EEG recording, repeated recording of all electrode impedances during an ongoing EEG recording, assessability of intrasystem noise and galvanic isolation of measurement earthing from earthing conductor (floating input).
resultsFor 15 of the identified 20 different digital EEG systems the specifications were provided by the distributors (among them all distributors based in Germany). All of these EEG systems are provided with a galvanic isolation (floating input). The internal noise can be tested with all systems; however, some systems do not allow repeated recording of the calibration signals and/or the electrode impedances during an ongoing EEG recording.
conclusionThe majority but not all of the currently available digital EEG systems offered for clinical use are eligible for use in brain death diagnostics as per German guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28980020What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.