The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Defining the gap between electrographic seizure burden, clinical expression and staff recognition of neonatal seizures
Abstract
Background: Neonatal seizures are often subclinical, making accurate diagnosis difficult. Objective: To describe the clinical manifestations of electrographic seizures recorded on continuous video-EEG, and to compare this description with the recognition of clinical seizures by experienced neonatal staff. Methods: Term infants, at risk of seizures, were monitored by continuous 12-channel video-EEG from <6 hours of birth for up to 72 hours. All clinical seizures were recorded by experienced neonatal staff on individual seizure charts. Video-EEG recordings were subsequently analysed. The number, duration and clinical expression of electrographic seizures were calculated (in seconds), and compared with the seizures clinically suspected by the neonatal staff. Results: Of 51 infants enrolled, nine had electrographic seizures. A further three had clinically suspected seizures, without associated electrographic abnormality. Of the total 526 electrographic seizures, 179 (34%) had clinical manifestations evident on the simultaneous video recording. The clinical seizure activity corresponded to 18.8% of the total electrographic seizure burden. Overdiagnosis also occurred frequently. Of the 177 clinically suspected seizure episodes documented by staff, 48 (27%) had corresponding electrographic evidence of seizure activity Thus, only 9% (48/526) of electrographic seizures were accompanied by clinical manifestations, which were identified and documented by neonatal staff. Conclusion: Only one-third of neonatal EEG seizures displays clinical signs on simultaneous video recordings. Moreover, two-thirds of these clinical manifestations are unrecognised, or misinterpreted by experienced neonatal staff. In the recognition and management of neonatal seizures clinical diagnosis alone is not enough.
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
Shellhaas, R. A., Chang, T., Tsuchida, T., Scher, M. S., Riviello, J. J., Abend, N. S., Nguyen, S., Wusthoff, C. J., & Clancy, R. R. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1097/wnp.0b013e31823e96d7 · Cited by 502
Seizure detection, seizure prediction, and closed-loop warning systems in epilepsy
Ramgopal, S., Thome-Souza, S., Jackson, M., Kadish, N. E., Sánchez Fernández, I., Klehm, J., Bosl, W., Reinsberger, C., Schachter, S., & Loddenkemper, T. (2014) · Epilepsy & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.06.023 · Cited by 469
Pressler, R. M., Cilio, M. R., Mizrahi, E. M., Moshé, S. L., Nunes, M. L., Plouin, P., Vanhatalo, S., Yozawitz, E., de Vries, L. S., Puthenveettil Vinayan, K., et al. (2021) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/epi.16815 · Cited by 365
EEG-based neonatal seizure detection with Support Vector Machines
Temko, A., Thomas, E., Marnane, W., Lightbody, G., & Boylan, G. (2011) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2010.06.034 · Cited by 339
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Murray, D. M., Boylan, G. B., Ali, I., Ryan, C. A., Murphy, B. P., & Connolly, S.
- Venue
- Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-07-11
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- F187-F191
- ISSN
- 1359-2998 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2052
- OpenAlex
- W2066997495
- Cited by
- 459
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Defining the gap between electrographic seizure burden, clinical expression and staff recognition of neonatal seizures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/adc.2005.086314
- The paper
- Murray, D. M., Boylan, G. B., Ali, I., Ryan, C. A., Murphy, B. P., & Connolly, S. (2008). Defining the gap between electrographic seizure burden, clinical expression and staff recognition of neonatal seizures. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2005.086314
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.