Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35841260›Full record

ReviewEpilepsia2022

Wearable OPM-MEG: A changing landscape for epilepsy.

Mangor Pedersen, David F Abbott, Graeme D Jackson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epilepsia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Mangor PedersenDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-9199-1916
David F AbbottFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7259-8238
Graeme D JacksonFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetoencephalography with optically pumped magnometers (OPM-MEG) is an emerging and novel, cost-effective wearable system that can simultaneously record neuronal activity with high temporal resolution ("when" neuronal activity occurs) and spatial resolution ("where" neuronal activity occurs). This paper will first outline recent methodological advances in OPM-MEG compared to conventional superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-MEG before discussing how OPM-MEG can become a valuable and noninvasive clinical support tool in epilepsy surgery evaluation. Although OPM-MEG and SQUID-MEG share similar data features, OPM-MEG is a wearable design that fits children and adults, and it is also robust to head motion within a magnetically shielded room. This means that OPM-MEG can potentially extend the application of MEG into the neurobiology of severe childhood epilepsies with intellectual disabilities (e.g., epileptic encephalopathies) without sedation. It is worth noting that most OPM-MEG sensors are heated, which may become an issue with large OPM sensor arrays (OPM-MEG currently has fewer sensors than SQUID-MEG). Future implementation of triaxial sensors may alleviate the need for large OPM sensor arrays. OPM-MEG designs allowing both awake and sleep recording are essential for potential long-term epilepsy monitoring.

Indexed as

EpilepsyWearable Electronic DevicesAdultBrainChildHumansMagnetoencephalographyNeurobiologybrain surgeryEEGepilepsyMEGMRIOPM-MEG

Identifiers

PMID35841260
PMCPMC9805039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.