SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Methodologies to detect cortico-cortical evoked potentials: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. 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.
- Wave turbulence and cortical dynamics.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) are electrophysiological responses elicited by direct electrical stimulation of one cortical region and recorded from another, providing insights into functional connectivity and communication pathways between brain areas. However, no consistent standard for defining and measuring CCEPs currently exists. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the CCEP literature on detection methods to evaluate commonalities and gaps in methodology. Extracted data included demographics, disease, recording type, montage, recording system, stimulation amplitude and frequency, time window used for epoching around stimulus onset, open access availability, and detection approach. Results: Of 187 studies undergoing full-text review, over half lacked a description of the CCEP detection method. Specifically, 9.1% utilized visual identification, whereas 49.74% did not explicitly state the method. The remaining 72 studies represented 3,424 patients, of whom 58.3% had sEEG electrodes and most had epilepsy. The most common detection method was threshold-based (68.1%), followed by statistical testing (16.7%) to determine whether CCEPs differed significantly from baseline, data-driven methods (4.1%) that quantify responses after learning from data, and frequency-based approaches (4.1%). Bipolar (48.6%) and single-electrode referential montages (18.1%) were most frequently employed. Discussion: Current CCEP detection methods lack consensus, with many studies omitting methodological details and relying heavily on threshold-based techniques that assume fixed response shapes. Future research should encourage the use of data-driven approaches, which learn directly from data, offer more robust alternatives, and improve quantification in both clinical and research contexts. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024568261, identifier CRD42024568261.
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.