ArticleNeurocritical care2024
A Novel Approach to Screen for Somatosensory Evoked Potentials in Critical Care.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of bedside and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in the diagnosis of functional neurological symptom disorder following spinal surgery: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSomatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) help prognostication, particularly in patients with diffuse brain injury. However, use of SSEP is limited in critical care. We propose a novel, low-cost approach allowing acquisition of screening SSEP using widely available intensive care unit (ICU) equipment, specifically a peripheral "train-of-four" stimulator and standard electroencephalograph.
methodsThe median nerve was stimulated using a train-of-four stimulator, and a standard 21-channel electroencephalograph was recorded to generate the screening SSEP. Generation of the SSEP was supported by visual inspection, univariate event-related potentials statistics, and a multivariate support vector machine (SVM) decoding algorithm. This approach was validated in 15 healthy volunteers and validated against standard SSEPs in 10 ICU patients. The ability of this approach to predict poor neurological outcome, defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability at 6 months, was tested in an additional set of 39 ICU patients.
resultsIn each of the healthy volunteers, both the univariate and the SVM methods reliably detected SSEP responses. In patients, when compared against the standard SSEP method, the univariate event-related potentials method matched in nine of ten patients (sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 100%), and the SVM had 100% sensitivity and specificity when compared with the standard method. For the 49 ICU patients, we performed both the univariate and the SVM methods: a bilateral absence of short latency responses (n = 8) predicted poor neurological outcome with 0% FPR (sensitivity = 21%, specificity = 100%).
conclusionsSomatosensory evoked potentials can reliably be recorded using the proposed approach. Given the very good but slightly lower sensitivity of absent SSEPs in the proposed screening approach, confirmation of absent SSEP responses using standard SSEP recordings is advised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36991177What 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.