HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2007.126367v1 93/5/366    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tan, M Articles by Tedman, B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tan, M Articles by Tedman, B

Paediatric EEGs: what NICE didn’t say

¹ The Roald Dahl EEG Department, Paediatric Neurosciences Foundation, Royal Liverpool Children’s Hospital (Alder Hey), Liverpool, UK
² The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Fazakerley, Liverpool, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr Richard Appleton, The Roald Dahl EEG Department, Paediatric Neurosciences Foundation, Royal Liverpool Children’s Hospital (Alder Hey), Eaton Road, Liverpool L12 2AP, UK; Richard.appleton@rlc.nhs.uk

Accepted for publication 30 October 2007

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The electroencephalogram (EEG) has a pivotal role in the investigation and classification of the epilepsies. The recognition of different patterns of electrical cerebral activity and their correlation with seizure types and syndromes, as well as the localisation of abnormal foci, are important in the investigation, classification and management of the epilepsies. Pattern recognition may also be important in diagnosing a range of neurological and genetic disorders and may be useful in the evaluation of encephalopathy and coma. Technology has also improved vastly with the use of multi-channel and distance recording (telemetry), co-correlation with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magneto-electroencephalography (MEG), and computer technology to assist with data analysis. However, computerised or automated analysis has not yet replaced the visual and generally subjective interpretation of EEG recordings in routine clinical practice.

Despite the importance of the EEG, epilepsy remains primarily a clinical diagnosis¹; importantly, the EEG should not be . . . [Full text of this article]