ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2024
Sensitivity and specificity of the Salzburg EEG criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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.
- Diagnosis, treatment, and outcome prediction of non-convulsive status epilepticus in unconscious patients in intensive care units.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Salzburg EEG criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) have been proposed as consensus criteria for NCSE. We aimed to perform an independent study of their diagnostic accuracy.
methodsA prospective study was carried out at Oslo University Hospital, including all consecutive patients ≥15 years old who were referred for an EEG with an explicit or implicit question of NCSE from February 2020 to February 2022. Two independent EEG readers scored the included EEGs according to the Salzburg criteria and blinded to the clinical data. The reference standard was defined as the clinical diagnosis the patient received based on all available clinical and paraclinical data. Diagnostic accuracy in identifying "certain/possible NCSE" was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value with their 95% confidence intervals.
resultsIn total, 469 patients/EEGs were included in the study. The prevalence of NCSE according to the reference standard was 11% (n = 53). The criteria showed a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI: 92-96%), a specificity of 77% (95% CI: 73-81%), a positive predictive value of 34% (95% CI: 30-39%), and a negative predictive value of 99% (95% CI: 98-100%). False positives for "certain NCSE" (n = 16) included many serial seizures and stimulus-induced rhythmic and periodic discharges (SIRPIDs), as well as a focal cortical dysplasia. False positives for "possible NCSE" (n = 79) were mainly represented by different encephalopathies and postictality.
interpretationThe low specificity of the Salzburg criteria calls for refinement before implementation into daily clinical practice.
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.