Suppr超能文献

过度报告和漏报癫痫发作:问题有多大?

Over- and underreporting of seizures: How big is the problem?

机构信息

Department of Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Seer Medical, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Epilepsia. 2024 May;65(5):1406-1414. doi: 10.1111/epi.17930. Epub 2024 Mar 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Clinical decisions on managing epilepsy patients rely on patient accuracy regarding seizure reporting. Studies have noted disparities between patient-reported seizures and electroencephalographic (EEG) findings during video-EEG monitoring periods, chiefly highlighting underreporting of seizures, a well-recognized phenomenon. However, seizure overreporting is a significant problem discussed within the literature, although not in such a large cohort. Our aim is to quantify the over- and underreporting of seizures in a large cohort of ambulatory EEG patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective data analysis on 3407 patients referred to a diagnostic service for ambulatory video-EEG between 2020 and 2022. Both patient-reported events and events discovered on review of the video-EEG were analyzed and classified as epileptic, psychogenic (typically clinical motor events, without accompanying EEG change), or noncorrelated events (NCEs; without perceivable clinical or EEG change). Events were analyzed by state of arousal and indication for referral. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with focal and generalized epilepsies.

RESULTS

A total of 21 024 events were recorded by 3407 patients. Fifty-eight percent of reported events were NCEs, whereas 27% of all events were epileptic. Sixty-four percent of epileptic seizures were not reported by the patient but discovered by the clinical service on review of the recording. NCEs were in the highest proportion in the awake and drowsy arousal states and were the most common event type for the majority of referral indications. Subgroup analysis found a significantly higher proportion of NCEs in the patients with focal epilepsy (23%) compared to generalized epilepsy (10%; p < .001, chi-squared proportion test).

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results reaffirm the phenomenon of underreporting and highlight the prevalence of overreporting. Overreporting likely represents irrelevant symptoms or electrographic discharges not represented on scalp electrodes, identification of which has important clinical relevance. Future studies should analyze events by risk factors to elucidate relationships clinicians can use and investigate the etiology of NCEs.

摘要

目的

管理癫痫患者的临床决策依赖于患者对发作报告的准确性。研究表明,在视频脑电图监测期间,患者报告的发作与脑电图(EEG)发现之间存在差异,主要表现为发作漏报,这是一种众所周知的现象。然而,在文献中讨论的一个重要问题是发作的过度报告,尽管在如此大的队列中并没有这样的报道。我们的目的是在一个大型的门诊脑电图患者队列中量化发作的过度和漏报。

方法

我们对 2020 年至 2022 年间被转诊到诊断服务进行门诊视频脑电图的 3407 例患者进行了回顾性数据分析。对患者报告的事件和视频脑电图复查中发现的事件进行了分析,并分为癫痫性、心因性(通常是临床运动事件,没有伴随 EEG 变化)或无相关性事件(无明显临床或 EEG 变化)。根据觉醒状态和转诊指征对事件进行了分析。在局灶性和全面性癫痫患者中进行了亚组分析。

结果

共有 3407 例患者记录了 21024 次事件。报告事件的 58%为 NCEs,而所有事件的 27%为癫痫性。64%的癫痫发作未被患者报告,但在临床服务复查记录时被发现。NCEs在觉醒和困倦觉醒状态中的比例最高,并且是大多数转诊指征中最常见的事件类型。亚组分析发现,局灶性癫痫患者的 NCEs 比例明显高于全面性癫痫患者(23%比 10%;p<.001,卡方比例检验)。

意义

我们的结果再次证实了发作漏报的现象,并强调了过度报告的普遍性。过度报告可能代表与头皮电极无关的无关症状或电活动放电,识别这些事件具有重要的临床意义。未来的研究应该分析事件的危险因素,以阐明临床医生可以使用的关系,并研究 NCEs 的病因。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验