Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 434

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is SEEG safe? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of stereo‐electroencephalography–related complications

Open access
Mullin, Jeffrey P., Shriver, Michael, Alomar, Soha, Najm, Imad, Bulacio, Juan, Chauvel, Patrick, Gonzalez‐Martinez, Jorge·2016·Epilepsia

Abstract

Summary: Objective: Stereo‐electroencephalography (SEEG) is a procedure performed for patients with intractable epilepsy in order to anatomically define the epileptogenic zone (EZ) and the possible related functional cortical areas. By avoiding the need for large craniotomies and due to its intrinsic precision placement features, SEEG may be associated with fewer complications. Nevertheless, intracerebral electrodes have gained a reputation of excessive invasiveness, with a “relatively high morbidity” associated with their placement. A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of SEEG complications has not been previously performed. The goal of this study is to quantitatively review the incidence of various surgical complications associated with SEEG electrode implantation in the literature and to provide a summary estimate. This will allow physicians to accurately counsel their patients about the potential complications related to this method of extraoperative invasive monitoring. Methods: The systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science database searches with the search algorithm. We analyzed complication rates using a fixed‐effects model with inverse variance weighting. Calculations for the meta‐analysis and construction of forest plots were completed using an established spreadsheet. The principal summary measures were the effect summary value and 95% confidence intervals (CI s). Results: The initial 1,901 retrieved citations were reviewed. After removing 787 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 1,114 publications were screened. At this stage, studies that did not mention the absence or presence of complications following SEEG or that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria in any manner were excluded. After excluding 1,057 citations, the full text was assessed in the resulting 57 articles for eligibility criteria. The most common complications were hemorrhagic (pooled prevalence 1.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6–1.4%) or infectious (pooled prevalence 0.8%, 95% CI 0.3–1.2%). Five mortalities were identified (pooled prevalence 0.3%, 95% CI −0.1–0.6%). Overall, our analysis identified 121 surgical complications related to SEEG insertion and monitoring (pooled prevalence 1.3%, 95% CI 0.9–1.7%). Significance: This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of complications related to SEEG. We report a rate substantially lower than the complication rates reported for other methods of extraoperative invasive monitoring. These data should alleviate the concerns of some regarding the safety of the “stereotactic” method, allowing a better decision process among the different methods of invasive monitoring and ameliorating the fear associated with the placement of depth electrodes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/epi.13298

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 434

Metadata

Authors
Mullin, J. P., Shriver, M., Alomar, S., Najm, I., Bulacio, J., Chauvel, P., & Gonzalez‐Martinez, J.
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-21
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
386-401
ISSN
  • 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1167
OpenAlex
W2278320166
Cited by
434
References
22
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is SEEG safe? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of stereo‐electroencephalography–related complications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/epi.13298
The paper
Mullin, J. P., Shriver, M., Alomar, S., Najm, I., Bulacio, J., Chauvel, P., & Gonzalez‐Martinez, J. (2016). Is SEEG safe? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of stereo‐electroencephalography–related complications. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13298

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.