[Skip to Navigation]
Comment & Response
February 1, 2021

Assessment of a Study of Continuous vs Repeat-Spot Electroencephalography in Patients With Critical Illness

Author Affiliations
  • 1Service de Neurologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles–Hôpital Erasme, Bruxelles, Belgium
  • 2Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
  • 3Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(3):369. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.5348

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.

Add or change institution
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

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.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words