The Journal of pediatrics · 2008
Assessment of neonatal electroencephalography (EEG) background by conventional and two amplitude-integrated EEG classification systems.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shellhaas Renée A, Gallagher Paul R, Clancy Robert R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement among conventional electroencephalography (CEEG) terminology background classification and a simple and an advanced amplitude-integrated EEG (aEEG) system, and to evaluate whether aEEG interpreter experience or electrographic seizures affect this agreement.
STUDY DESIGN: CEEG background was classified by traditional interpretive criteria for 144 neonatal recordings, from which a single channel was converted to aEEGs. These aEEGs were independently interpreted by neonatologists according to the simple and advanced classification systems.
RESULTS: Interreader agreement was better with the simple aEEG system compared with the advanced aEEG system (multirater kappa, 0.66 vs 0.44). Fair-to-moderate agreement was found between both of the aEEG classification systems and CEEG (simple: kappa, 0.34 to 0.45; advanced: kappa, 0.36 to 0.45). Agreement did not vary significantly based on the aEEG interpreter experience or the presence of seizures.
CONCLUSIONS: Neonatologists found better agreement using the simple aEEG system regardless of their expertise or the presence of seizures. This finding has implications for patient selection in future multicenter neonatal neuroprotection studies.
STUDY DESIGN: CEEG background was classified by traditional interpretive criteria for 144 neonatal recordings, from which a single channel was converted to aEEGs. These aEEGs were independently interpreted by neonatologists according to the simple and advanced classification systems.
RESULTS: Interreader agreement was better with the simple aEEG system compared with the advanced aEEG system (multirater kappa, 0.66 vs 0.44). Fair-to-moderate agreement was found between both of the aEEG classification systems and CEEG (simple: kappa, 0.34 to 0.45; advanced: kappa, 0.36 to 0.45). Agreement did not vary significantly based on the aEEG interpreter experience or the presence of seizures.
CONCLUSIONS: Neonatologists found better agreement using the simple aEEG system regardless of their expertise or the presence of seizures. This finding has implications for patient selection in future multicenter neonatal neuroprotection studies.