|
|
||||||||
From the Department of Neurology (Dr. Gilbert), Childrens Hospital Medical Center; and the Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (Dr. Buncher), University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Donald L. Gilbert, Department of Neurology, OSB5 Childrens Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify and analyze the value of expected information from an EEG after first unprovoked seizure in childhood.
BACKGROUND: An EEG is often recommended as part of the standard diagnostic evaluation after first seizure.
METHODS: A MEDLINE search from 1980 to 1998 was performed. From eligible studies, data on EEG results and seizure recurrence risk in children were abstracted, and sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of EEG in predicting recurrence were calculated. Linear information theory was used to quantify and compare the expected information from the EEG in all studies. Standard testtreat decision analysis with a treatment threshold at 80% recurrence risk was used to determine the range of pretest recurrence probabilities over which testing affects treatment decisions.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 831 children were eligible for analysis. At best, the EEG had a sensitivity of 61%, a specificity of 71%, and an expected information of 0.16 out of a possible 0.50. The pretest probability of recurrence was less than the lower limit of the range for rational testing in all studies.
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the quantity of expected information from the EEG was too low to affect treatment recommendations in most patients. EEG should be ordered selectively, not routinely, after first unprovoked seizure in childhood.
Key words: EEGFirst seizureChildrenSensitivitySpecificity
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. S. Doescher, T. J. deGrauw, B. S. Musick, D. W. Dunn, A. J. Kalnin, J. C. Egelhoff, A. W. Byars, V. P. Mathews, and J. K. Austin Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)and Electroencephalographic (EEG) Findings in a Cohort of Normal Children With Newly Diagnosed Seizures J Child Neurol, June 1, 2006; 21(6): 490 - 495. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C D Ferrie, J H Livingston, and M A Clarke RCPCH guideline appraisal on EEG after first seizure Arch. Dis. Child., January 1, 2004; 89(1): 90 - 91. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Aydin, C. Okuyaz, A. Serdaroglu, and K. Gucuyener Utility of Electroencephalography in the Evaluation of Common Neurologic Conditions in Children J Child Neurol, June 1, 2003; 18(6): 394 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. L. Gilbert and P. S. Gartside Factors Affecting the Yield of Pediatric EEGs in Clinical Practice Clinical Pediatrics, January 1, 2002; 41(1): 25 - 32. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. L. Gilbert, J. M. Freeman, D. Hirtz, S. Ashwal, A. Berg, D. Bettis, C. Camfield, P. Camfield, P. Crumrine, R. Elterman, et al. Practice parameter: Evaluating a first nonfebrile seizure in children: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology, the Child Neurology Society, and the American Epilepsy Society Neurology, February 27, 2001; 56(4): 574 - 575. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. T. Berg, W. Arts, J. Boulloche, C. S. Camfield, P. Camfield, P. Jallon, J. Loiseau, P. Loiseau, S. Shinnar, D. J. Dlugos, et al. An EEG should not be obtained routinely after first unprovoked seizure in childhood Neurology, September 26, 2000; 55(6): 898 - 899. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Hirtz, S. Ashwal, A. Berg, D. Bettis, C. Camfield, P. Camfield, P. Crumrine, R. Elterman, S. Schneider, and S. Shinnar Practice parameter: Evaluating a first nonfebrile seizure in children: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology, the Child Neurology Society, and the American Epilepsy Society Neurology, September 12, 2000; 55(5): 616 - 623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |