Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2020
Continuous EEG monitoring by a new simplified wireless headset in intensive care unit.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-Care EEG for Non-Convulsive Seizure and Status Epilepticus: Advances, Limitations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Point-of-Care Electroencephalography in Acute Neurological Care: A Narrative Review.Neurology international · 2025Review
- Article
- Seizure detection with reduced electroencephalogram channels: research trends and outlook.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Rapid Response EEG: Current State and Future Directions.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022Review
- The future of intensive care: delirium should no longer be an issue.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Review
- A multimodal approach for the ecological investigation of sustained attention: A pilot study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence Analysis of EEG Amplitude in Intensive Heart Care.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn critically ill patients continuous EEG (cEEG) is recommended in several conditions. Recently, a new wireless EEG headset (CerebAir®,Nihon-Kohden) is available. It has 8 electrodes, and its positioning seems to be easier than conventional systems. Aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of this device for cEEG monitoring, if positioned by ICU physician.
methodsNeurological patients were divided in two groups according with the admission to Neuro-ICU (Study-group:20 patients) or General-ICU (Control-group:20 patients). In Study group, cEEG was recorded by CerebAir® assembled by an ICU physician, while in Control group a simplified 8-electrodes-EEG recording positioned by an EEG technician was performed.
resultsTime for electrodes applying was shorter in Study-group than in Control-group: 6.2 ± 1.1' vs 10.4 ± 2.3'; p < 0.0001. Thirty five interventions were necessary to correct artifacts in Study-group and 11 in Control-group. EEG abnormalities with or without epileptic meaning were respectively 7(35%) and 7(35%) in Study-group, and 5(25%) and 9(45%) in Control-group;p > 0.05. In Study-group, cEEG was interrupted for risk of skin lesions in 4 cases after 52 ± 4 h. cEEG was obtained without EEG technician in all cases in Study-group; quality of EEG was similar.
conclusionsAlthough several limitations should be considered, this simplified EEG system could be feasible even if EEG technician was not present. It was faster to position if compared with standard techniques, and can be used for continuous EEG monitoring. It could be very useful as part of diagnostic process in an emergency setting.
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.