ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2022
Implementing the SCORE system improves the quality of clinical EEG reading.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unsupervised clustering of electroclinical features in temporal lobe epilepsy: A data-driven approach.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026Article
- Structured EEG report complements the prognostic stratification of status epilepticus.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Hierarchical Event Descriptor library schema for EEG data annotation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- EEG reporting: What's the score?Clinical neurophysiology practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess whether implementing the freeware version of the SCORE EEG system (Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG) leads to improvement in the quality of clinical EEG reading, and whether EEG reports in SCORE EEG are understood and accepted by the referring physicians. Methods: We generated EEG reports in the conventional, free-text style and then using SCORE EEG, in consecutive patients referred to routine EEG. We used the Georgian translation in the SCORE EEG Free Edition. We pre-defined quality indicators consisting of a list of 24 key features that need to be addressed in EEG reports. We compared these quality indicators in free-text reports with SCORE EEG. In addition, EEG reports in SCORE EEG format were assessed by ten referring physicians, who evaluated their usability on a 7-point Likert scale. Results: We included and evaluated EEG reports from 157 patients (80 female; age: 1-75 years; median: 28 years). Fourteen features were reported exclusively in SCORE EEG, four were reported significantly more often in SCORE EEG than in free-text format, and six features were reported equally often in SCORE EEG and in free-text format. Usability aspects of SCORE EEG were highly rated by the referring physicians (median 6-7 on the 7-point Likert scale). Conclusions: The structured system of EEG reporting in SCORE EEG helped the experts reading clinical EEG to cover the important aspects and increase the quality of clinical EEG reports. Significance: Implementing the freeware version of SCORE EEG in underprivileged areas will help improving management of patients with epilepsy.
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.