ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2021
Stimulus-induced EEG-patterns and outcome after cardiac arrest.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- cEEG and rEEG detection rates of prognostic indicators in cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Rhythmic and Periodic Patterns and Seizures in Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2026Review
- Role of Neurophysiologic Testing in Prognostication of Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2026Review
- The predictive value of highly malignant EEG patterns after cardiac arrest: evaluation of the ERC-ESICM recommendations.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Implications of stimulus-induced, rhythmic, periodic, or ictal discharges (SIRPIDs) in hospitalized patients.Frontiers in 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEEG is commonly used to predict prognosis in post anoxic coma. We investigated if stimulus-induced rhythmic, periodic or ictal discharges (SIRPIDs) add prognostic information after cardiac arrest.
methodsIn the multicenter Targeted Temperature Management trial, routine-EEGs were prospectively recorded after rewarming (≥36 h). Presence and subtype of SIRPIDs and main EEG-pattern (benign, malignant, highly malignant) were retrospectively reported according to a standardised classification. Patients were followed up after 180 days. Poor outcome was defined as severe neurological disability or death (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5).
resultsOf 142 patients, 71% had poor outcome and 14% had SIRPIDs. There was no significant difference in outcome between patients with and without SIRPIDs, even when subgrouped according to underlying main EEG-pattern. Comparing subtypes of SIRPIDs, 82% of patients with stimulus-induced periodic discharges had poor outcome compared to 44% of patients with stimulus-induced rhythmic delta activity, but the difference was not significant.
conclusionsIn EEGs performed ≥36 h after cardiac arrest, SIRPIDs cannot be used to reliably predict poor outcome. Whether certain subtypes of SIRPIDs indicate worse prognosis needs further investigation. SIGNIFICANCE: Categorising the main EEG-pattern has important prognostic implications, but assessment of late appearing SIRPIDs does not seem to add prognostic information.
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.