The standardization debate: A conflation trap in critical care electroencephalography

DSpace/Manakin Repository

The standardization debate: A conflation trap in critical care electroencephalography

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: The standardization debate: A conflation trap in critical care electroencephalography
Author: Ng, Marcus C.; Gaspard, Nicolas; Cole, Andrew James; Hoch, Daniel B.; Cash, Sydney S.; Bianchi, Matt Travis; O’Rourke, Deirdre A.; Rosenthal, Eric Scott; Chu, Catherine Jean; Westover, Michael Brandon

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Ng, Marcus C., Nicolas Gaspard, Andrew J. Cole, Daniel B. Hoch, Sydney S. Cash, Matt Bianchi, Deirdre A. O’Rourke, Eric S. Rosenthal, Catherine J. Chu, and M. Brandon Westover. 2015. “The Standardization Debate: A Conflation Trap in Critical Care Electroencephalography.” Seizure 24 (January): 52–58. doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2014.09.017.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Purpose: Persistent uncertainty over the clinical significance of various pathological continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) findings in the intensive care unit (ICU) has prompted efforts to standardize ICU cEEG terminology and an ensuing debate. We set out to understand the reasons for, and a satisfactory resolution to, this debate.

Method: We review the positions for and against standardization, and examine their deeper philosophical basis.

Results: We find that the positions for and against standardization are not fundamentally irreconcilable. Rather, both positions stem from conflating the three cardinal steps in the classic approach to EEG, which we term “description”, “interpretation”, and “prescription”. Using real-world examples we show how this conflation yields muddled clinical reasoning and unproductive debate among electroencephalographers that is translated into confusion among treating clinicians. We propose a middle way that judiciously uses both standardized terminology and clinical reasoning to disentangle these critical steps and apply them in proper sequence.

Conclusion: The systematic approach to ICU cEEG findings presented herein not only resolves the standardization debate but also clarifies clinical reasoning by helping electroencephalographers assign appropriate weights to cEEG findings in the face of uncertainty.
Published Version: doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2014.09.017
Other Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465375/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#OAP
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:29666953
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters