Guidelines for recording/analyzing quantitative EEG and evoked potentials: Part II. Clinical aspects

Departamento de Mapeamento Topográfico, Sociedade Brasileira de Neurofisiologia Clínica, São Paulo, Brasil.
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria (Impact Factor: 0.84). 04/1999; 57(1):132-46.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Digital EEG (DEEG) and quantitative EEG (QEEG) are recently developed tools present in many clinical situations. Besides showing didactic and research utility, they may also have a clinical role. Although a considerable amount of scientific literature has been published related to QEEG, many controversies still subsist regarding its clinical utilization. Clinical applications are: 1. DEEG is already an established substitute for conventional EEG, representing a clear technical advance. 2. Certain QEEG techniques are an established addition to DEEG for: 2a) screening for epileptic spikes or seizures in long-term recordings; 2b) Operation room and intensive care unit EEG monitoring. 3. Certain QEEG techniques are considered possible useful additions to DEEG: 3a) topographic voltage and dipole analysis in epilepsy evaluations; 3b) frequency analysis in cerebrovascular disease and dementia, mostly when other tests have been inconclusive. 4. QEEG remains investigational for clinical use in postconcussion syndrome, learning disability, attention disorders, schizophrenia, depression, alcoholism and drug abuse. EEG brain mapping and other QEEG techniques should be clinically used only by physicians highly skilled in clinical EEG interpretation and as an adjunct to traditional EEG work.

Download full-text


Available from: Renato Anghinah, Feb 28, 2015
1 Follower
21 Reads
  • Source
    • "A Braintech 3.0 (EMSA " Equipamentos Médicos " ) was the recording hardware. Impedance was maintained below 10 K, and the electrodes were placed according to the International 10–20 System [5] [20]. The interconnected ear lobe electrodes reference (without resistor ) is standard in our laboratory, despite the fact that there are controversies regarding which reference is the best [21] [22]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is not a specific Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnostic test. AD diagnosis relies on clinical history, neuropsychological, and laboratory tests, neuroimaging and electroencephalography. Therefore, new approaches are necessary to enable earlier and more accurate diagnosis and to measure treatment results. Quantitative EEG (qEEG) can be used as a diagnostic tool in selected cases. The aim of this study was to answer if distinct electrode montages have different sensitivity when differentiating controls from AD patients. We analyzed EEG spectral peaks (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma bands), and we compared references (Biauricular, Longitudinal bipolar, Crossed bipolar, Counterpart bipolar, and Cz reference). Support Vector Machines and Logistic Regression classifiers showed Counterpart bipolar montage as the most sensitive electrode combination. Our results suggest that Counterpart bipolar montage is the best choice to study EEG spectral peaks of controls versus AD.
    International Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 05/2011; 2011(3):761891. DOI:10.4061/2011/761891
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional and quantitative electroencephalography (EEG and qEEG, respectively) may enhance clinical diagnosis and treatment planning provided to persons with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and postconcussive symptoms. Effective and appropriate use of EEG and qEEG in this context requires expert-level knowledge of these technologies, mTBI, and the differential diagnosis for postconcussive symptoms. A practical and brief review from the perspective of a clinician-scientist engaged principally in the care and study of persons with mTBI therefore may be of use and value to other clinicians and scientists interested in these matters. Toward that end, this article offers an overview of the current applications of conventional EEG and qEEG to the study and clinical evaluation of persons with mTBI. The clinical case definition of TBI, the differential diagnosis of post-injury neuropsychiatric disturbances, and the typical course of recovery following mTBI are reviewed. With this background and context, the strengths and limitations of the literature describing EEG and qEEG studies in this population are considered. The implications of this review on the applications of these electrophysiologic assessments to the clinical evaluation of persons with mTBI and postconcussive symptoms are then considered. Finally, suggestions are offered regarding the design of future studies using these technologies in this population. Although this review may be of interest and value to professionals engaged in clinical or research electrophysiology in their daily work, it is intended to serve more immediately the needs of clinicians less familiar with these types of clinical electrophysiologic assessments.
    International journal of psychophysiology: official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology 03/2011; 82(1):41-52. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.03.004 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is not a specific test to diagnose Alzheimer's disease (AD). Its diagnosis should be based upon clinical history, neuropsychological and laboratory tests, neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG). Therefore, new approaches are necessary to enable earlier and more accurate diagnosis and to follow treatment results. In this study we used a Machine Learning (ML) technique, named Support Vector Machine (SVM), to search patterns in EEG epochs to differentiate AD patients from controls. As a result, we developed a quantitative EEG (qEEG) processing method for automatic differentiation of patients with AD from normal individuals, as a complement to the diagnosis of probable dementia. We studied EEGs from 19 normal subjects (14 females/5 males, mean age 71.6 years) and 16 probable mild to moderate symptoms AD patients (14 females/2 males, mean age 73.4 years. The results obtained from analysis of EEG epochs were accuracy 79.9% and sensitivity 83.2%. The analysis considering the diagnosis of each individual patient reached 87.0% accuracy and 91.7% sensitivity.
    Clinical EEG and neuroscience: official journal of the EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society (ENCS) 07/2011; 42(3):160-5. DOI:10.1177/155005941104200304 · 2.22 Impact Factor