ArticlePediatric neurology2021
Electroencephalography Technologist Inter-rater Agreement and Interpretation of Pediatric Critical Care Electroencephalography.
Article in Pediatric neurology, 2021. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Competence of healthcare professionals performing electroencephalography test: A systematic review.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2025Review
- United States Epilepsy Center Characteristics: A Data Analysis From the National Association of Epilepsy Centers.Neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesElectroencephalography (EEG) technologists commonly screen continuous EEG. Until now, the inter-rater agreement or sensitivity for important EEG findings has been unknown in this group.
methodsTwenty-nine EEG technologists and three clinical neurophysiologists interpreted 90 five-minute samples of pediatric critical care EEG. Inter-rater agreement was examined with Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa for EEG findings. A gold-standard consensus agreement was developed for examining sensitivity and specificity for seizures or discontinuity. Kruskal-Wallis tests with Benjamani-Hochberg corrections for multiple comparisons were utilized to examine associations between correct scoring and certification status and years of experience.
resultsAggregate agreement was moderate for seizures and fair for EEG background continuity among EEG technologists. Individual agreement for seizures and continuity varied from slight to substantial. For individual EEG technologists, sensitivity for seizures ranged from 44 to 93% and sensitivity for continuity ranged from 81 to 100%. Raters with Certified Long Term Monitoring credentials were more likely to identify seizures correctly. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study to evaluate inter-rater agreement and interpretation correctness among EEG technologists interpreting pediatric critical care EEG. EEG technologists demonstrated better aggregate agreement for seizure detection than other EEG findings, yet individual results and internal consistency varied widely. These data provide important insight into the common practice of utilizing EEG technologists for screening critical care EEG.
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.