Loading…

EEG normal variants: A prospective study using the SCORE system

•We analyzed the number of normal variants in a SCORE database of 3050 EEG recordings.•The most common normal variant was sharp transients.•We present typical examples and detailed characterization of the normal variants. To determine the prevalence and characteristics of normal variants in EEG reco...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical neurophysiology practice 2022-01, Vol.7, p.183-200
Main Authors: Wüstenhagen, Stephan, Terney, Daniella, Gardella, Elena, Meritam Larsen, Pirgit, Rømer, Connie, Aurlien, Harald, Beniczky, Sándor
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•We analyzed the number of normal variants in a SCORE database of 3050 EEG recordings.•The most common normal variant was sharp transients.•We present typical examples and detailed characterization of the normal variants. To determine the prevalence and characteristics of normal variants in EEG recordings in a large cohort, and provide readers with typical examples of all normal variants for educational purposes. Using the SCORE EEG system (Standardized Computer-Based Organized Reporting of EEG), we prospectively extracted EEG features in consecutive patients. In this dataset, we analyzed 3050 recordings from 2319 patients (mean age 38.5 years; range: 1–89 years). The distribution of the normal variants was as follows: sharp transients 19.21% (including wicket spikes), rhythmic temporal theta of drowsiness 6.03%, temporal slowing of the old 2.89%, slow fused transients 2.59%, 14-and 6-Hz bursts 1.83%, breach rhythm 1.25%, small sharp spikes 1.05%, 6-Hz spike and slow wave 0.69% and SREDA 0.03%. The most prevalent normal variants are the sharp transients, which must not be over-read as epileptiform discharges. EEG readers must be familiar with the normal variants to avoid misdiagnosis and misclassification of patients referred to clinical EEG recordings.
ISSN:2467-981X
2467-981X
DOI:10.1016/j.cnp.2022.06.001