The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluating the Utility of Inpatient Video‐EEG Monitoring
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Purpose: Inpatient video‐EEG monitoring (VEM) is widely used for the diagnosis, seizure classification, and presurgical evaluation of patients with seizure disorders. It is resource intensive and relatively expensive, so its utility continues to be debated. Few studies have specifically evaluated the utility of inpatient VEM in altering diagnosis or management of patients with seizure disorders. We sought to assess the proportion of patients for whom the preadmission diagnosis and management were altered after inpatient VEM of patients admitted for diagnostic and presurgical evaluation of seizure disorders. Methods: Data from a consecutive cohort of patients admitted over a 3‐year period to an inpatient VEM unit in a tertiary referral hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The preadmission diagnosis and management by the referring neurologist was compared with the diagnosis and management after the VEM. Results: Of 131 patients, 91 (70%) were admitted for diagnostic evaluation and 39 (30%) for a presurgical workup. Mean evaluative period was 5.6 days. Mean number of seizures recorded was 2.9. No seizures were recorded in 31% of patients. Interictal EEG showed epileptiform changes in 56 (43%). In 76 (58%), the diagnosis was altered as a result of the VEM, with the greatest change being an increase in the nonepileptic diagnosis group (7% to 31%) and the generalized diagnosis group (5% to 11%). Management was changed after the VEM in 95 (73%). Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that inpatient VEM has a high yield in changing diagnosis and management. Future long‐term cost–benefit studies of the management changes resulting from VEM evaluation will aid in further reinforcing its role.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Epilepsy: Accuracy of Patient Seizure Counts
Hoppe, C., Poepel, A., & Elger, C. E. (2007) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.64.11.1595 · Cited by 485
Diagnosing refractory epilepsy: response to sequential treatment schedules
Mohanraj, R., & Brodie, M. J. (2006) · European Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01215.x · Cited by 340
A forward-looking review of seizure prediction
Freestone, D. R., Karoly, P. J., & Cook, M. J. (2017) · Current Opinion in Neurology · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000429 · Cited by 169
Self-citationPopkirov, S., Grönheit, W., & Wellmer, J. (2015) · Seizure · doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2015.07.016 · Cited by 59
“This diagnostic sequence has the advantage of increasing the sensitivity regarding epileptiform abnormalities in interictal EEG in cases of epilepsy or dual pathology [71].”
Bayly, J., Carino, J., Petrovski, S., Smit, M., Fernando, D. A., Vinton, A., Yan, B., Gubbi, J. R., Palaniswami, M. S., & O'Brien, T. J. (2013) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/epi.12207 · Cited by 50
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ghougassian, D. F., D'Souza, W., Cook, M. J., & O'Brien, T. J.
- Venue
- Epilepsia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-07-21
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 928-932
- ISSN
- 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 1528-1167
- OpenAlex
- W2012231499
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.93
- 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: Evaluating the Utility of Inpatient Video‐EEG Monitoring. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004.51003.x
- The paper
- Ghougassian, D. F., D'Souza, W., Cook, M. J., & O'Brien, T. J. (2004). Evaluating the Utility of Inpatient Video‐EEG Monitoring. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004.51003.x
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.