ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Prognostic value of quantitative and visual electroencephalography in disorders of consciousness: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electroencephalography (EEG) is widely used to assess prognosis in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC). Visual assessments by physicians and quantitative EEG (qEEG) are commonly used; however, only a few studies have directly compared their predictive accuracy. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare the prognostic value of visual EEG classification versus that of qEEG-based spectral analysis for survival and neurological outcomes in patients with impaired consciousness. Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined 97 patients with impaired consciousness admitted to the Emergency and Critical Care Center of Fukushima Medical University Hospital between April 2018 and December 2023. Visual EEG grading was performed using a conventional grading system based on established criteria. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare predictive performance. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed incorporating qEEG and clinical prognostic factors (Scarpino score, rehabilitation status, and age). The incremental predictive value of clinical variables was assessed using DeLong's test. Results: Visual EEG assessment showed moderate predictive accuracy [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.77 for survival; 0.677-0.725 for neurological outcomes]. qEEG-based models showed comparable performance to visual EEG classification, with slightly higher AUC values that were not statistically significant. The addition of clinical factors significantly improved predictive accuracy, particularly for neurological recovery (AUC improved from 0.729 to 0.936; Conclusion: Combining qEEG features and clinical prognostic factors provided a comprehensive approach for outcome prediction in patients with DoC. These findings support the potential of a multimodal prognostic framework integrating objective EEG metrics and physician-derived evaluations, although further prospective validation is required.
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.