Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42724715›Full record

ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026

Clinical utility of in-ear EEG electrodes in hospitalized patients: comparison with standard scalp EEG.

Monika Dzalto, Adela Desowska, Nina Moutonnet, Sajitha Cannadathu, Olivia Lucas, Ben Moore, Yeliz Demir, Clementine Tshuma, Robert Leech, Steven White and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Monika DzaltoDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, Sir Michael Uren Hub, White City Campus, 86 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.
Adela DesowskaDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, Sir Michael Uren Hub, White City Campus, 86 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.
Nina MoutonnetUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, Sir Michael Uren Hub, White City Campus, 86 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.
Sajitha CannadathuImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, United Kingdom.
Olivia LucasImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, United Kingdom.
Ben MooreImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, United Kingdom.
Yeliz DemirImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, United Kingdom.
Clementine TshumaImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, United Kingdom.
Robert LeechKing's College London, Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London WC2R 2L, United Kingdom.
Steven WhiteDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Danilo MandicDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, Sir Michael Uren Hub, White City Campus, 86 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.
Gregory ScottDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, Sir Michael Uren Hub, White City Campus, 86 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Clinical electroencephalography (EEG) is resource-intensive, requiring expensive equipment and trained specialists to attach scalp electrodes. Consequently, there is interest in alternative EEG technologies that could provide low-cost, user-friendly, and unobtrusive recording in clinical settings. Here, we aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of in-ear EEG electrodes in hospitalized patients through direct comparison with routine scalp EEG. Methods: For thirty routine adult in-patient clinical EEG recordings at Charing Cross Hospital (London, United Kingdom), participants were recruited and had in-ear EEG electrodes placed alongside standard scalp electrodes. Recordings from ear and scalp electrodes were independently and blindly interpreted by a consultant clinical neurophysiologist using a bespoke assessment protocol. Scalp EEG served as the gold-standard reference. Results: Compared with scalp EEG, interpretation of ear EEG achieved a sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 80.0%, and accuracy of 82.8% for the detection of any neurophysiological abnormality. There was substantial agreement between ear and scalp EEG for encephalopathy grading (quadratic weighted kappa = 0.72). One left posterior quadrant seizure, present in scalp EEG, was not detected by ear EEG interpretation alone. Conclusion: In-ear EEG demonstrated good agreement with conventional scalp EEG for the detection of clinically relevant abnormalities, with substantial agreement for encephalopathy severity grading. While reduced spatial coverage may limit sensitivity to focal phenomena, in-ear EEG appears well-suited to detecting diffuse cerebral dysfunction. Significance: This study paves the way for broader clinical development and validation of ear EEG-based devices as a pragmatic and scalable technology for use in acute hospital settings.

Indexed as

earelectrodeselectroencephalography

Identifiers

PMID42724715
PMCPMC13560526

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.