ArticleClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Utility of the IFCN criteria for identifying interictal epileptiform discharges by experts: A decision hygiene approach to improve inter-rater reliability.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if implementing the IFCN criteria to define interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) improves expert inter-rater reliability (IRR) and diagnostic performance.
methodsNine EEG experts rated the same 200 candidate IEDs (100 expert-consensus, 100 epilepsy monitoring unit [EMU]-validated) as epileptiform or not, in random order, in two rounds separated by at least 30 days. During the second round, raters additionally selected the applicable IFCN criteria for each candidate IED.
resultsOverall, there were no major differences in performance (AUC; 0.90 vs. 0.91) or IRR (AC1; 0.48 vs. 0.47) between both Parts; nor was there a major difference in calibration within the expert-consensus dataset (median absolute calibration index; 35.5 vs. 30.0). Similarly, there were no major differences in performance or IRR within either dataset. IRR was substantial within the EMU-validated dataset and only fair within the expert-consensus dataset. IRR was fair for criteria 2, 3, 5 and 6, and moderate for criteria 1 and 4.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the IFCN criteria to define IEDs may not significantly improve IRR, performance, or overall calibration among experts. SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing expert IRR for each criterion may enhance the utility of the IFCN criteria in 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.