SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
cEEG and rEEG detection rates of prognostic indicators in cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate neuroprognostication following cardiac arrest is essential for clinical decision-making; however, the comparative diagnostic performance of continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) and routine electroencephalography (rEEG) remains uncertain. Although cEEG is preferred for the detection of dynamic electrographic abnormalities such as nonconvulsive status epilepticus, the implementation of this technique is limited by high resource demands. Whether rEEG, a typically brief (20-30 min) recording, provides comparable prognostic accuracy is still debated. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2010 to December 2024 for studies relating to comatose post-cardiac arrest patients. Methodological quality was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) and QUADAS-C. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata v18.0, with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) was estimated using random-effects models. Results: Sixteen studies (5,895 patients) were included. cEEG exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.61] and specificity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00; AUC = 0.85). rEEG yielded a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.42-0.58) and a specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92-0.99; AUC = 0.75). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness while Deeks' test indicated low publication bias (cEEG: Discussion: Despite the theoretical advantages of cEEG in monitoring evolving brain activity, rEEG demonstrated comparable diagnostic performance, particularly in specificity, with substantially lower resource requirements. Our findings suggest that rEEG may serve as a feasible alternative or complementary tool to cEEG, especially in resource-constrained or time-sensitive settings, thereby supporting more accessible EEG-based neuroprognostication. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251151755, CRD420251151755.
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.