Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31257983›Full record

ArticleEpilepsy currents

Bringing EEG Back to the Future: Use of cEEG in Neurocritical Care.

Adriana Bermeo-Ovalle

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsy currents. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

1 author.

Adriana Bermeo-Ovalle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

methodsWe performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with National Inpatient Sample data from 2004 to 2013. We sampled hospitalized adult patients who received intensive care and then compared patients who underwent cEEG to those who did not. We considered diagnostic subgroups of seizure/status epilepticus, subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage, and altered consciousness. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, hospitalization cost, and length of stay.

resultsIn total, 7 102 399 critically ill patients were identified, of whom 22 728 received cEEG. From 2004 to 2013, the proportion of patients who received cEEG increased from 0.06% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03%-0.09%) to 0.80% (95% CI: 0.62%-0.98%). While the cEEG cohort appeared more ill, cEEG use was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.93,

conclusionsThere was a >10-fold increase in cEEG use from 2004 to 2013. However, this procedure may still be underused; cEEG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but used for only 0.3% of the critically ill population. While administrative claims analysis supports the utility of cEEG for critically ill patients, our findings suggest variable benefit by diagnosis, and investigation with greater clinical detail is warranted.

Identifiers

PMID31257983
PMCPMC6891844
OpenAlexW2953837136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.