Non-electroencephalography-based seizure detection

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperReviewResearchpeer-review

Standard

Non-electroencephalography-based seizure detection. / Beniczky, Sándor; Jeppesen, Jesper.

In: Current Opinion in Neurology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 01.04.2019, p. 198-204.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperReviewResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Beniczky, Sándor ; Jeppesen, Jesper. / Non-electroencephalography-based seizure detection. In: Current Opinion in Neurology. 2019 ; Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 198-204.

Bibtex

@article{d80d84d07e0647c09d55276721f36bf0,
title = "Non-electroencephalography-based seizure detection",
abstract = "Purpose of reviewThere is need for automated seizure detection using mobile or wearable devices, for objective seizure documentation and decreasing morbidity and mortality associated with seizures. Due to technological development, a high number of articles have addressed non-electroencephalography (EEG)-based seizure detection. However, the quality of study-design and reporting is extremely heterogeneous. We aimed at giving the reader a clear picture on the current state of seizure detection, describing the level of evidence behind the various devices.Recent findingsFifteen studies of phase-2 or above, demonstrated that non-EEG-based devices detected generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) with high sensitivity (≥90%) and low false alarm rate (FAR) (down to 0.2/day). We found limited evidence for detection of motor seizures other than GTCS, mostly from subgroups in larger studies, targeting GTCS. There is little evidence for non-EEG-based detection of nonmotor seizures: sensitivity is low (19-74%) with extremely high FAR (50-216/day).SummaryDetection of GTCS is reliable and there are several, validated devices on the market. However, detection of other seizure types needs further research.",
keywords = "automated seizure detection, mobile health systems, wearable devices",
author = "S{\'a}ndor Beniczky and Jesper Jeppesen",
year = "2019",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/WCO.0000000000000658",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "198--204",
journal = "Current Opinion in Neurology",
issn = "1350-7540",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Non-electroencephalography-based seizure detection

AU - Beniczky, Sándor

AU - Jeppesen, Jesper

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Purpose of reviewThere is need for automated seizure detection using mobile or wearable devices, for objective seizure documentation and decreasing morbidity and mortality associated with seizures. Due to technological development, a high number of articles have addressed non-electroencephalography (EEG)-based seizure detection. However, the quality of study-design and reporting is extremely heterogeneous. We aimed at giving the reader a clear picture on the current state of seizure detection, describing the level of evidence behind the various devices.Recent findingsFifteen studies of phase-2 or above, demonstrated that non-EEG-based devices detected generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) with high sensitivity (≥90%) and low false alarm rate (FAR) (down to 0.2/day). We found limited evidence for detection of motor seizures other than GTCS, mostly from subgroups in larger studies, targeting GTCS. There is little evidence for non-EEG-based detection of nonmotor seizures: sensitivity is low (19-74%) with extremely high FAR (50-216/day).SummaryDetection of GTCS is reliable and there are several, validated devices on the market. However, detection of other seizure types needs further research.

AB - Purpose of reviewThere is need for automated seizure detection using mobile or wearable devices, for objective seizure documentation and decreasing morbidity and mortality associated with seizures. Due to technological development, a high number of articles have addressed non-electroencephalography (EEG)-based seizure detection. However, the quality of study-design and reporting is extremely heterogeneous. We aimed at giving the reader a clear picture on the current state of seizure detection, describing the level of evidence behind the various devices.Recent findingsFifteen studies of phase-2 or above, demonstrated that non-EEG-based devices detected generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) with high sensitivity (≥90%) and low false alarm rate (FAR) (down to 0.2/day). We found limited evidence for detection of motor seizures other than GTCS, mostly from subgroups in larger studies, targeting GTCS. There is little evidence for non-EEG-based detection of nonmotor seizures: sensitivity is low (19-74%) with extremely high FAR (50-216/day).SummaryDetection of GTCS is reliable and there are several, validated devices on the market. However, detection of other seizure types needs further research.

KW - automated seizure detection

KW - mobile health systems

KW - wearable devices

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071225093&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000658

DO - 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000658

M3 - Review

C2 - 30664069

AN - SCOPUS:85071225093

VL - 32

SP - 198

EP - 204

JO - Current Opinion in Neurology

JF - Current Opinion in Neurology

SN - 1350-7540

IS - 2

ER -