Diagnostic accuracy of paroxysmal spells: Clinical history versus observation

8Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Our goal was to evaluate how accurate neurologists are at differentiating between different paroxysmal events based on clinical history versus observation of the spell in question. Forty-seven neurologists reviewed 12 clinical histories and videos of recorded events of patients admitted in the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit (EMU). They were asked to diagnose events as epileptic seizures, non-epileptic behavioral spells (NEBS), or other physiologic events as well as rate their confidence in their diagnosis. The median diagnostic accuracy for all paroxysmal events was 67% for clinical history and 75% for observation (p =.001). This was largely due to the difference in accuracy within the subgroup of patients with NEBS (67% history vs. 83% observation, p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hanrahan, B., Ghearing, G., Urban, A., Plummer, C., Pan, J., Hendrickson, R., … Antony, A. (2018). Diagnostic accuracy of paroxysmal spells: Clinical history versus observation. Epilepsy and Behavior, 78, 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.09.001

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free