ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Reliability of EEG in brain death diagnosis: an analysis of clinical and technical factors.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In brain death determination (BDD), electroencephalography (EEG) is a commonly used diagnostic method in Germany for proving irreversibility of previously clinically proven loss of brain function. Despite the comprehensive availability of EEG in intensive care units, the reliability of EEG readings is often limited by biological or technical artefacts. This study aimed to determine the detection rate of electrocerebral inactivity (ECI) with a special focus on reliability and challenges of using EEG in BDD. Methods: A retrospective monocentric analysis of all BDD EEG data acquired from January 2015 to December 2025 at our tertiary care hospital was conducted. All identified BDD EEG reports were systematically analysed for their evaluability and for technical and biological artefacts. In addition, sociodemographic and patient-specific parameters that could influence the accuracy of EEG readings (e.g., craniotomies or intracranial drainages) were recorded. Results: A total of 47 BDD EEG reports from 42 patients (women: 38.1%, mean age: 48.4 ± 14.4 years, median age: 52 years, age range: 21-78 years) were identified. In 81.0% of the patients, BDD could be confirmed using EEG. While biological artefacts did not significantly limit the evaluability of the EEG readings ( Discussion: We conclude that EEG is a reliable diagnostic tool in BDD in most cases if technically accurately recorded. Further studies are required to optimise existing technical errors in selected patients to increase the already high level of methodological reliability.
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.