↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Continuous EEG Monitoring in Intensive Care Units in The Netherlands: A National Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Neurocritical Care, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
The Use of Continuous EEG Monitoring in Intensive Care Units in The Netherlands: A National Survey
Published in
Neurocritical Care, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12028-018-0525-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danny M. W. Hilkman, Walther N. K. A. van Mook, Werner H. Mess, Vivianne H. J. M. van Kranen-Mastenbroek

Abstract

Currently, continuous electroencephalographic monitoring (cEEG) is the only available diagnostic tool for continuous monitoring of brain function in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Yet, the exact relevance of routinely applied ICU cEEG remains unclear, and information on the implementation of cEEG, especially in Europe, is scarce. This study explores current practices of cEEG in adult Dutch ICU departments focusing on organizational and operational factors, development over time and factors perceived relevant for abstaining its use. A national survey on cEEG in adults among the neurology and adult intensive care departments of all Dutch hospitals (n = 82) was performed. The overall institutional response rate was 78%. ICU cEEG is increasingly used in the Netherlands (in 37% of all hospitals in 2016 versus in 21% in 2008). Currently in 88% of university, 55% of teaching and 14% of general hospitals use ICU cEEG. Reasons for not performing cEEG are diverse, including perceived non-feasibility and lack of data on the effect of cEEG use on patient outcome. Mostly, ICU cEEG is used for non-convulsive seizures or status epilepticus and prognostication. However, cEEG is never or rarely used for monitoring cerebral ischemia and raised intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. Review and reporting practices differ considerably between hospitals. Nearly all hospitals perform non-continuous review of cEEG traces. Methods for moving toward continuous review of cEEG traces are available but infrequently used in practice. cEEG is increasingly used in Dutch ICUs. However, cEEG practices vastly differ between hospitals. Future research should focus on uniform cEEG practices including unambiguous EEG interpretation to facilitate collaborative research on cEEG, aiming to provide improved standard patient care and robust data on the impact of cEEG use on patient outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 35%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 24 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,068,996
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#860
of 1,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,009
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.