评估成人重症监护病房脑电图反应性的方法:综述。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology Pub Date : 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1097/WNP.0000000000001078
Jaeho Hwang, Sung-Min Cho, Romergryko Geocadin, Eva K Ritzl
{"title":"评估成人重症监护病房脑电图反应性的方法:综述。","authors":"Jaeho Hwang, Sung-Min Cho, Romergryko Geocadin, Eva K Ritzl","doi":"10.1097/WNP.0000000000001078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>EEG reactivity (EEG-R) has become widely used in intensive care units for diagnosing and prognosticating patients with disorders of consciousness. Despite efforts toward standardization, including the establishment of terminology for critical care EEG in 2012, the processes of testing and interpreting EEG-R remain inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review was conducted on PubMed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of articles published between January 2012, and November 2022, testing EEG-R on adult intensive care unit patients. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on highly specialized stimulation equipment or animal, basic science, or small case report studies. The Quality In Prognostic Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and five articles were identified, with 26 variables collected for each. EEG-R testing varied greatly, including the number of stimuli (range: 1-8; 26 total described), stimulus length (range: 2-30 seconds), length between stimuli (range: 10 seconds-5 minutes), frequency of stimulus application (range: 1-9), frequency of EEG-R testing (range: 1-3 times daily), EEG electrodes (range: 4-64), personnel testing EEG-R (range: neurophysiologists to nonexperts), and sedation protocols (range: discontinuing all sedation to no attempt). EEG-R interpretation widely varied, including EEG-R definitions and grading scales, personnel interpreting EEG-R (range: EEG specialists to nonneurologists), use of quantitative methods, EEG filters, and time to detect EEG-R poststimulation (range: 1-30 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates the persistent heterogeneity of testing and interpreting EEG-R over the past decade, and contributing components were identified. Further many institutional efforts must be made toward standardization, focusing on the reproducibility and unification of these methods, and detailed documentation in the published literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":15516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods of Evaluating EEG Reactivity in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jaeho Hwang, Sung-Min Cho, Romergryko Geocadin, Eva K Ritzl\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/WNP.0000000000001078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>EEG reactivity (EEG-R) has become widely used in intensive care units for diagnosing and prognosticating patients with disorders of consciousness. Despite efforts toward standardization, including the establishment of terminology for critical care EEG in 2012, the processes of testing and interpreting EEG-R remain inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review was conducted on PubMed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of articles published between January 2012, and November 2022, testing EEG-R on adult intensive care unit patients. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on highly specialized stimulation equipment or animal, basic science, or small case report studies. The Quality In Prognostic Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and five articles were identified, with 26 variables collected for each. EEG-R testing varied greatly, including the number of stimuli (range: 1-8; 26 total described), stimulus length (range: 2-30 seconds), length between stimuli (range: 10 seconds-5 minutes), frequency of stimulus application (range: 1-9), frequency of EEG-R testing (range: 1-3 times daily), EEG electrodes (range: 4-64), personnel testing EEG-R (range: neurophysiologists to nonexperts), and sedation protocols (range: discontinuing all sedation to no attempt). EEG-R interpretation widely varied, including EEG-R definitions and grading scales, personnel interpreting EEG-R (range: EEG specialists to nonneurologists), use of quantitative methods, EEG filters, and time to detect EEG-R poststimulation (range: 1-30 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates the persistent heterogeneity of testing and interpreting EEG-R over the past decade, and contributing components were identified. Further many institutional efforts must be made toward standardization, focusing on the reproducibility and unification of these methods, and detailed documentation in the published literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000001078\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000001078","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:脑电图反应性(EEG-R)已广泛应用于重症监护病房,用于诊断和预后意识障碍患者。尽管在标准化方面做出了努力,包括在 2012 年建立了重症监护脑电图术语,但脑电图反应性的测试和解释过程仍不一致:方法:根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南在 PubMed 上进行了综述。纳入标准包括 2012 年 1 月至 2022 年 11 月间发表的、对成人重症监护病房患者进行 EEG-R 测试的文章。排除标准包括侧重于高度专业化刺激设备或动物、基础科学或小型病例报告研究的文章。预后研究质量工具用于评估偏倚风险:结果:共发现了 15 篇文章,每篇文章收集了 26 个变量。EEG-R 测试差异很大,包括刺激数量(范围:1-8;共 26 篇)、刺激长度(范围:2-30 秒)、刺激间隔时间(范围:10 秒-5 分钟)、刺激应用频率(范围:1-9)、EEG-R 测试频率(范围:每天 1-3 次)、EEG 电极(范围:4-64)、EEG-R 测试人员(范围:神经生理学家到非专业人员)和镇静方案(范围:停止所有镇静到不尝试)。EEG-R 的解释存在很大差异,包括 EEG-R 的定义和分级标准、EEG-R 解释人员(范围:从脑电图专家到非神经病学专家)、定量方法的使用、脑电图滤波器以及刺激后检测 EEG-R 的时间(范围:1-30 秒):本研究表明,在过去十年中,脑电图-R 的检测和解释一直存在差异,并找出了造成差异的因素。许多机构必须进一步努力实现标准化,重点关注这些方法的可重复性和统一性,并在发表的文献中进行详细记录。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Methods of Evaluating EEG Reactivity in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Review.

Purpose: EEG reactivity (EEG-R) has become widely used in intensive care units for diagnosing and prognosticating patients with disorders of consciousness. Despite efforts toward standardization, including the establishment of terminology for critical care EEG in 2012, the processes of testing and interpreting EEG-R remain inconsistent.

Methods: A review was conducted on PubMed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of articles published between January 2012, and November 2022, testing EEG-R on adult intensive care unit patients. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on highly specialized stimulation equipment or animal, basic science, or small case report studies. The Quality In Prognostic Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.

Results: One hundred and five articles were identified, with 26 variables collected for each. EEG-R testing varied greatly, including the number of stimuli (range: 1-8; 26 total described), stimulus length (range: 2-30 seconds), length between stimuli (range: 10 seconds-5 minutes), frequency of stimulus application (range: 1-9), frequency of EEG-R testing (range: 1-3 times daily), EEG electrodes (range: 4-64), personnel testing EEG-R (range: neurophysiologists to nonexperts), and sedation protocols (range: discontinuing all sedation to no attempt). EEG-R interpretation widely varied, including EEG-R definitions and grading scales, personnel interpreting EEG-R (range: EEG specialists to nonneurologists), use of quantitative methods, EEG filters, and time to detect EEG-R poststimulation (range: 1-30 seconds).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the persistent heterogeneity of testing and interpreting EEG-R over the past decade, and contributing components were identified. Further many institutional efforts must be made toward standardization, focusing on the reproducibility and unification of these methods, and detailed documentation in the published literature.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
198
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology features both topical reviews and original research in both central and peripheral neurophysiology, as related to patient evaluation and treatment. Official Journal of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society.
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic Value of Bereitschaftspotential in People With Functional Seizures. Chronobiological Spatial Clusters of Cortical Regions in the Human Brain. Classifying High-Frequency Oscillations by Morphologic Contrast to Background, With Surgical Outcome Correlates. Is Intraoperative Muscle Motor Evoked Potential Variability due to Fluctuating Lower Motor Neuron Background Excitability? Book Review for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine Board Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1