ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2020
Tablet-based electroencephalography diagnostics for patients with epilepsy in the West African Republic of Guinea.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive mobile EEG as a tool for seizure monitoring and management: A systematic review.Epilepsia · 2022Pooled it
- Assistive Artificial Intelligence in Epilepsy and Its Impact on Epilepsy Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- E = mcEpilepsia open · 2024Article
- HAPPILEE: HAPPE In Low Electrode Electroencephalography, a standardized pre-processing software for lower density recordings.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Utilization of epilepsy surgery in the United States: A study of the National Inpatient Sample investigating the roles of race, socioeconomic status, and insurance.Surgical neurology international · 2021Article
- The Recent Progress and Applications of Digital Technologies in Healthcare: A Review.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors at 17 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeEpilepsy is most common in lower-income settings where access to electroencephalography (EEG) is generally poor. A low-cost tablet-based EEG device may be valuable, but the quality and reproducibility of the EEG output are not established.
methodsTablet-based EEG was deployed in a heterogeneous epilepsy cohort in the Republic of Guinea (2018-2019), consisting of a tablet wirelessly connected to a 14-electrode cap. Participants underwent EEG twice (EEG1 and EEG2), separated by a variable time interval. Recordings were scored remotely by experts in clinical neurophysiology as to data quality and clinical utility.
resultsThere were 149 participants (41% female; median age 17.9 years; 66.6% ≤21 years of age; mean seizures per month 5.7 ± SD 15.5). The mean duration of EEG1 was 53 ± 12.3 min and that of EEG2 was 29.6 ± 12.8 min. The mean quality scores of EEG1 and EEG2 were 6.4 [range, 1 (low) to 10 (high); both medians 7.0]. A total of 44 (29.5%) participants had epileptiform discharges (EDs) at EEG1 and 25 (16.8%) had EDs at EEG2. EDs were focal/multifocal (rather than generalized) in 70.1% of EEG1 and 72.5% of EEG2 interpretations. A total of 39 (26.2%) were recommended for neuroimaging after EEG1 and 22 (14.8%) after EEG2. Of participants without EDs at EEG1 (n = 53, 55.8%), seven (13.2%) had EDs at EEG2. Of participants with detectable EDs on EEG1 (n = 23, 24.2%), 12 (52.1%) did not have EDs at EEG2.
conclusionsTablet-based EEG had a reproducible quality level on repeat testing and was useful for the detection of EDs. The incremental yield of a second EEG in this setting was ~13%. The need for neuroimaging access was evident.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.