Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40860178›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025

Continuous EEG Monitoring in Canadian Hospitals: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey.

Naomi Niznick, Hanna Tang, Julie Kromm, Victoria A McCredie, Miguel Alejandro Arevalo Astrada, Jay R Gavvala, Marcus C Ng, Tadeu A Fantaneanu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

Naomi NiznickDepartment of Medicine (Neurology), The Ottawa Hospital, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0935-9135
Hanna TangDepartment of Medicine (Neurology), The Ottawa Hospital, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2840-8609
Julie KrommDepartments of Critical Care Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8850-9095
Victoria A McCredieInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Division of University Health Network, University of Toronto, Critical Care and Neurocritical Care Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, Krembil Research Institute, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1590-2846
Miguel Alejandro Arevalo AstradaDepartment of Medicine (Neurology), The Ottawa Hospital, Canada.
Jay R GavvalaDepartment of Neurology, UTHealth Houston McGovern School of Medicine, Texas; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9392-6608
Marcus C NgSection of Neurology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-5943
Tadeu A FantaneanuDepartment of Medicine (Neurology), The Ottawa Hospital, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4218-068X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Continuous EEG (cEEG) is the gold standard for diagnosing nonconvulsive seizures (NCSs) and nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) in critically ill patients, with NCSE occurring in 8%-10% of patients with unexplained coma. Untreated NCSs are associated with secondary brain injury, as well as increased mortality and morbidity. cEEG monitoring allows clinicians to identify more than twice the number of seizures compared with a 30-min routine EEG recording. However, there are limited data on cEEG practices in Canadian hospitals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the availability, indications, and barriers to cEEG access in Canada. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was distributed to EEG laboratory directors and physicians who interpret cEEGs to assess cEEG monitoring practices in Canadian adult hospitals. The survey evaluated institutional cEEG availability, clinical applications, and technical infrastructure. Results: Among 1,267 adult hospitals in Canada, only 92 hospital networks (9%) were identified as having an EEG laboratory. Twenty-four were identified as potentially offering cEEG monitoring, and a survey was sent to a physician at these institutions. Responses were received from 22 institutions (92% response rate), with 19 hospital networks reporting cEEG availability-representing just 2% of Canadian hospitals. Geographic disparities were significant, with 3 provinces and all 3 territories lacking cEEG access. Among tertiary care hospitals, only 68% reported cEEG availability. Barriers included insufficient EEG technologist coverage and prolonged processing periods for 24-hour EEG recordings. Most institutions lacked standardized guidelines, were unable to perform new cEEG hookups after regular work hours, and did not have access to abbreviated montages when cEEG was unavailable. Discussion: cEEG availability in Canada is highly limited, including at tertiary care centers, with significant geographic inequities and operational barriers. Most Canadian hospitals do not meet guideline standards for cEEG use. These findings highlight the need for systemic changes to improve cEEG access and align Canadian cEEG practices with international standards.

Identifiers

PMID40860178
PMCPMC12377918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.