To the Editor Rossetti et al1 report findings of a trial of continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) monitoring vs repeat-spot electroencephalography (rEEG) in patients with critical illness, suggesting that cEEG does not improve the outcome (mortality at 6 months) compared with rEEG. While we congratulate the authors on this trial, the delayed manner in which cEEG recording and review was carried out, the lack of any prespecified intervention, and the infrequent changes in treatment that resulted limit any conclusions on the potential effects of cEEG on the outcome.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Gaspard N, Westover MB, Hirsch LJ. Assessment of a Study of Continuous vs Repeat-Spot Electroencephalography in Patients With Critical Illness. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(3):369. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.5348
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.