Acceptability by End-users of a Standardized Structured Format for Reporting EEG.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Alioth Guerrero-Aranda, Henry Friman-Guillen, Andrés Antonio González-Garrido
{"title":"Acceptability by End-users of a Standardized Structured Format for Reporting EEG.","authors":"Alioth Guerrero-Aranda,&nbsp;Henry Friman-Guillen,&nbsp;Andrés Antonio González-Garrido","doi":"10.1177/15500594221091527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The report of the electroencephalogram (EEG) results has traditionally been made using free-text formats with a huge variation in descriptions due to several factors. Recently, the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) endorsed the use of the Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE). This system has many advantages, but only some concerns have been investigated so far. This study aimed to assess the end-users acceptability of this proposed EEG report format. A 16-item electronic survey was sent to physicians who use EEG services of a medical diagnosis clinic. Physicians had been receiving the EEG reports in free-text formats from the same three board-certified electroencephalographers for the past three years. In January 2019, the report changed to the SCORE format. The survey assessed five main topics: physician information and historical use of EEG; personal preferences; comparative aspects of the formats; impact of the new format on clinical decision-making; and satisfaction. Thirty-two of 52 have responded to the survey (61%). On average, 81% of the responders have received enough reports with the new format to reliably complete the survey. Every responder prefers the standardized compared to the free-text format. Twenty-five responders like the inclusion of the head model, and interestingly, five suggest including another legend to differentiate \"slow activity\" from \"other abnormal activity\". Virtually all responders would recommend the new format, but one-third read only the conclusion. Our findings suggest high acceptability of this standardized report format. Despite the limitations of this study, we hope these findings contribute to the improvement and expansion of standardized EEG reporting systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":10682,"journal":{"name":"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience","volume":"54 5","pages":"483-488"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical EEG and Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15500594221091527","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The report of the electroencephalogram (EEG) results has traditionally been made using free-text formats with a huge variation in descriptions due to several factors. Recently, the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) endorsed the use of the Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE). This system has many advantages, but only some concerns have been investigated so far. This study aimed to assess the end-users acceptability of this proposed EEG report format. A 16-item electronic survey was sent to physicians who use EEG services of a medical diagnosis clinic. Physicians had been receiving the EEG reports in free-text formats from the same three board-certified electroencephalographers for the past three years. In January 2019, the report changed to the SCORE format. The survey assessed five main topics: physician information and historical use of EEG; personal preferences; comparative aspects of the formats; impact of the new format on clinical decision-making; and satisfaction. Thirty-two of 52 have responded to the survey (61%). On average, 81% of the responders have received enough reports with the new format to reliably complete the survey. Every responder prefers the standardized compared to the free-text format. Twenty-five responders like the inclusion of the head model, and interestingly, five suggest including another legend to differentiate "slow activity" from "other abnormal activity". Virtually all responders would recommend the new format, but one-third read only the conclusion. Our findings suggest high acceptability of this standardized report format. Despite the limitations of this study, we hope these findings contribute to the improvement and expansion of standardized EEG reporting systems.

最终用户对EEG报告的标准化结构化格式的可接受性。
脑电图(EEG)结果的报告传统上使用自由文本格式,由于多种因素,其描述差异很大。最近,国际临床神经生理学联合会(IFCN)赞同使用基于计算机的EEG标准化组织报告(SCORE)。该系统有许多优点,但目前只研究了一些问题。本研究旨在评估最终用户对这种提议的脑电图报告格式的接受程度。一份包含16个项目的电子调查被发送给使用EEG服务的医疗诊断诊所的医生。在过去的三年里,医生们一直从同样的三个委员会认证的脑电图学家那里收到自由文本格式的脑电图报告。2019年1月,该报告改为SCORE格式。该调查评估了五个主要主题:医生信息和脑电图的历史使用;个人喜好;格式的比较方面;新格式对临床决策的影响;和满意度。52人中有32人(61%)回应了调查。平均而言,81%的应答者收到了足够的新格式报告,以可靠地完成调查。与自由文本格式相比,每个回答者都更喜欢标准化格式。25名回应者喜欢包括头部模型,有趣的是,5人建议包括另一个图例来区分“缓慢活动”和“其他异常活动”。几乎所有的回复者都会推荐新的格式,但三分之一的人只阅读结论。我们的研究结果表明这种标准化报告格式的可接受性很高。尽管本研究存在局限性,但我们希望这些发现有助于改进和扩展标准化的脑电图报告系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical EEG and Neuroscience conveys clinically relevant research and development in electroencephalography and neuroscience. Original articles on any aspect of clinical neurophysiology or related work in allied fields are invited for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信