4.4 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of microEEG: A miniature, wireless EEG device

期刊

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 81-85

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.03.015

关键词

Sensitivity and specificity; EEG; Altered mental status; Diagnostic accuracy

资金

  1. NIH [1RC3NS070658]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measuring the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of an EEG device is unconventional and complicated by imperfect interrater reliability. We sought to compare the DA of a miniature, wireless, battery-powered EEG device (microEEG) to a reference EEG machine in emergency department (ED) patients with altered mental status (AMS). Two hundred twenty-five ED patients with AMS underwent 3 EEGs. Two EEGs, EEG1 (Nicolet Monitor, reference) and EEG2 (microEEG) were recorded simultaneously with EEG cup electrodes using a signal splitter. The remaining study, EEG3, was recorded with microEEG using an electrode cap immediately before or after EEG1/EEG2. The official EEG1 interpretation was considered the gold standard (EEG1-GS). EEG1, 2, and 3 were de-identified and blindly interpreted by two independent readers. A generalized mixed linear model was used to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of these interpretations relative to EEG1-GS and to compute a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Seventy-nine percent of EEG1-GS were abnormal. Neither the DOR nor the k(f) representing interrater reliabilities differed significantly between EEG1, EEG2, and EEG3. The mean setup time was 27min for EEG1/EEG2 and 12 min for EEG3. The mean electrode impedance of EEG3 recordings was 12.6 k Omega(SD: 31.9 k Omega). The diagnostic accuracy of microEEG was comparable to that of the reference system and was not reduced when the EEG electrodes had high and unbalanced impedances. A common practice with many scientific instruments, measurement of EEG device DA provides an independent and quantitative assessment of device performance. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据