ArticleEncephalitis (Seoul, Korea)2025
Impact of standardized electroencephalography terminology education among early-career neurologists in Korea: a single-group pretest-posttest study.
Article in Encephalitis (Seoul, Korea), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of nonconvulsive status epilepticus in the ictal-interictal continuum using artificial intelligence: a prospective observational cohort study.Encephalitis (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based lateralization and localization of seizure onset in focal cortical dysplasia patients using ictal scalp EEG.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the effectiveness of implementing standardized electroencephalography (EEG) terminology and education on improving interpretation skills among non-English speakers. Methods: EEGs were collected retrospectively from 16 critically ill patients and two alert epilepsy patients (30-minute sessions) and read by 10 neurologists. After initial interpretation, a learning module was provided to the neurologists. One week later, the neurologists reinterpreted the same EEGs randomly reordered. The interpretation accuracies of 144 items were scored as correct, similar, incorrect, or not recognized based on consensus answers. Results: Overall scores improved significantly after learning modules were completed, increasing from 88.8 ± 23.1 to 118.2 ± 39.2 (p = 0.037). Performance improvement was also observed, regardless of years of clinical experience treating patients with epilepsy. However, more experienced raters tended to have higher inter-rater agreement. The baseline correct answer rates for rhythmic delta activity (RDA), periodic discharges (PD), sporadic epileptiform discharge (ED), and electrographic seizures (ES) were 42.5%, 50%, 60.0%, and 20.0%, respectively. After the learning modules were completed, correct answer rates increased by 21.4% for RDA (p = 0.11), 11.1% for PD (p = 0.06), and 28.1% for ES (p = 0.02), but decreased by 11.1% for sporadic ED (p = 0.02). Specifically, the accuracy for generalized PD improved significantly after learning (p = 0.04). Most minor items except location were often missed even after learning. Conclusion: Education is imperative for standardizing EEG descriptions. As such, developing educational modules that emphasize minor items including prevalence, frequency, duration, and amplitude will broaden the recognition of EEG features, improving the quality of future research and patient care.
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.