ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Utility of continuous EEG monitoring in postanoxic coma: a retrospective multicenter study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- (f)Utility of cEEG after cardiac arrest should not be judged by its unique prognostic contribution.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reply to: Utility in prognostication of continuous EEG monitoring in postanoxic coma: finding the right balance.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Utility of continuous EEG monitoring in postanoxic coma: finding the right balance.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reply to: Utility in prognostication of continuous EEG monitoring in postanoxic coma: importance on timing in relation to the cardiac arrest.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Utility in prognostication of continuous EEG monitoring in postanoxic coma: importance on timing in relation to the cardiac arrest.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing postanoxic coma, continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) monitoring is widely applied for prognostication, guided by national guidelines recommending multimodal assessment. While the diagnostic accuracy of cEEG is well-established, its actual outcomes and impact on intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) have largely remained unreported since guideline implementation. This study evaluates outcomes and the unique prognostic value of cEEG monitoring in patients with postanoxic coma after guideline implementation.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study analyzed 699 patients with postanoxic coma who underwent cEEG monitoring between January 2021 and January 2024 across three Dutch academic centers. Prognostic outcomes (favorable, poor, or uncertain) were classified based on established EEG patterns at 12- and 24-hour timepoints. For patients with a poor cEEG prognosis, clinical indicators (neurological examination, hemodynamic stability, additional prognostic modalities) were assessed to determine cEEG's unique contribution.
resultsOf 699 patients, 13.0% (n = 91) had a favorable, 16.2% (n = 113) a poor, and 70.8% (n = 495) an uncertain prognosis. Among those with a poor cEEG prognosis, 58% also had clinical indicators of a poor prognosis such as wide pupils with absent light reflexes or hemodynamic instability. Only 6.7% (n = 47) of all cEEGs provided unique additional prognostic value, with no other clinical indicators suggesting a poor prognosis.
conclusionscEEG monitoring provided unique prognostic information in a small percentage of cases, with most yielding uncertain prognoses. This suggests current universal cEEG monitoring may be suboptimal given resource constraints and limited additional diagnostic yield.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.