Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34033243›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia open2021

Ceribell EEG shortens seizure diagnosis and workforce time and is useful for COVID isolation.

Marian P LaMonte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Rapid Response EEG: Current State and Future Directions.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marian P LaMonteAscension St. Agnes Hospital, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4316-3382
University of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether the portable Ceribell

methodsA multidisciplinary team developed a protocol for the use of the Ceribell EEG. The staff deploying the device, the attending physician, and the interpreting neurologist completed evaluation tools for each patient. Data maintained for quality and resource planning of 18-channel electroencephalography ordered for suspected SE were used as controls. Times to diagnosis were compared by application of Welch-Satterthwaite tests and workforce call-in demands by Fisher's exact t test. We evaluated qualitative data related to the use of the EEG in COVID-19 isolation rooms and on its technical aspects and acceptance by staff members.

resultsThe Ceribell EEG reduced diagnosis time (P = .0000006) and on-call workforce demand (P = .02). The device can be used at any time of day in any hospital care area and has advantages in respiratory isolation rooms. SIGNIFICANCE: Compared with a standard 18-channel EEG, the Ceribell device allowed earlier diagnosis of SE and non-SE conditions and reduced workforce demands. Due to the ease of its use and its simple components, which can be readily disinfected, it is advantageous for COVID-19 patients in isolation.

Indexed as

COVID-19ElectroencephalographyEmergency Medical ServicesInfection ControlAnswering ServicesEarly DiagnosisHealth Services ResearchHealth WorkforceHospitalizationHumansProof of Concept StudyQuality ImprovementSafety ManagementSARS-CoV-2Status EpilepticusTime-to-TreatmentCOVID-19electroencephalographystatus epilepticus

Identifiers

PMID34033243
PMCPMC8013275
OpenAlexW3128046848

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.