4.6 Article

Inter-rater agreement on identification of electrographic seizures and periodic discharges in ICU EEG recordings

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 9, Pages 1661-1669

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.11.008

Keywords

EEG; Continuous monitoring; Inter-rater agreement; Seizure detection; Periodic discharge; ICU EEG monitoring

Funding

  1. NIH-NINDS [1R43NS064647, 1R43NS076045-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study investigated inter-rater agreement (IRA) among EEG experts for the identification of electrographic seizures and periodic discharges (PDs) in continuous ICU EEG recordings. Methods: Eight board-certified EEG experts independently identified seizures and PDs in thirty 1-h EEG segments which were selected from ICU EEG recordings collected from three medical centers. IRA was compared between seizure and PD identifications, as well as among rater groups that have passed an ICU EEG Certification Test, developed by the Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC). Results: Both kappa and event-based IRA statistics showed higher mean values in identification of seizures compared to PDs (k = 0.58 vs. 0.38; p < 0.001). The group of rater pairs who had both passed the ICU EEG Certification Test had a significantly higher mean IRA in comparison to rater pairs in which neither had passed the test. Conclusions: IRA among experts is significantly higher for identification of electrographic seizures compared to PDs. Additional instruction, such as the training module and certification test developed by the CCEMRC, could enhance this IRA. Significance: This study demonstrates more disagreement in the labeling of PDs in comparison to seizures. This may be improved by education about standard EEG nomenclature. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available