Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29589330›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2018

The Use of Continuous EEG Monitoring in Intensive Care Units in The Netherlands: A National Survey.

Danny M W Hilkman, Walther N K A van Mook, Werner H Mess, Vivianne H J M van Kranen-Mastenbroek

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Danny M W HilkmanDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC +), PO-box 5800, 6202, Maastricht, The Netherlands. d.hilkman@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7687-9037
Walther N K A van MookDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC +), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Werner H MessDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC +), PO-box 5800, 6202, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Vivianne H J M van Kranen-MastenbroekDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC +), PO-box 5800, 6202, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, continuous electroencephalographic monitoring (cEEG) is the only available diagnostic tool for continuous monitoring of brain function in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Yet, the exact relevance of routinely applied ICU cEEG remains unclear, and information on the implementation of cEEG, especially in Europe, is scarce. This study explores current practices of cEEG in adult Dutch ICU departments focusing on organizational and operational factors, development over time and factors perceived relevant for abstaining its use.

methodsA national survey on cEEG in adults among the neurology and adult intensive care departments of all Dutch hospitals (n = 82) was performed.

resultsThe overall institutional response rate was 78%. ICU cEEG is increasingly used in the Netherlands (in 37% of all hospitals in 2016 versus in 21% in 2008). Currently in 88% of university, 55% of teaching and 14% of general hospitals use ICU cEEG. Reasons for not performing cEEG are diverse, including perceived non-feasibility and lack of data on the effect of cEEG use on patient outcome. Mostly, ICU cEEG is used for non-convulsive seizures or status epilepticus and prognostication. However, cEEG is never or rarely used for monitoring cerebral ischemia and raised intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. Review and reporting practices differ considerably between hospitals. Nearly all hospitals perform non-continuous review of cEEG traces. Methods for moving toward continuous review of cEEG traces are available but infrequently used in practice.

conclusionscEEG is increasingly used in Dutch ICUs. However, cEEG practices vastly differ between hospitals. Future research should focus on uniform cEEG practices including unambiguous EEG interpretation to facilitate collaborative research on cEEG, aiming to provide improved standard patient care and robust data on the impact of cEEG use on patient outcome.

Indexed as

Critical CareElectroencephalographyHealth Care SurveysHumansIntensive Care UnitsNetherlandsNeurologistsNeurophysiological MonitoringProcedures and Techniques UtilizationSeizuresContinuous EEG monitoringCritical illnessIntensive careNeuromonitoringNon-convulsive seizures

Identifiers

PMID29589330
PMCPMC6208830
OpenAlexW2795208681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.