Back

Ambulatory vEEG discontinued against medical advice among individuals with intellectual disabilities: a retrospective chart review

Nurse, E. S.; Winterling, N.; Cook, M.

2023-11-27 neurology
10.1101/2023.11.26.23299038 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThis retrospective chart review aims to quantify the rate of patients with intellectual disability (ID) accessing an Australian ambulatory EEG service, and understand the implications of discontinuing studies against medical advice. MethodsElectronic records of referrals, patient monitoring notes, and EEG reports were accessed retrospectively. Each referral was assessed to determine whether the patient had an ID. For each study where patients were discharged against medical advice, the outcomes of their EEG report were assessed and compared between the ID and non-ID groups. Exploratory analysis was performed assessing the effects of age, the percentage of the requested monitoring undertaken, and outcome rates as a function of monitoring duration. ResultsThere were significantly more patients in the ID group with early disconnection than the non-ID group (Chi squared test, p=0.000). There was no significant difference in the rates of clinical outcomes between the ID and non-ID groups amongst patients who disconnected early. ConclusionsAlthough rates of early disconnection are higher in those with ID, study outcomes are largely similar between patients with and without ID in this retrospective analysis of an ambulatory EEG service. SignificanceAmbulatory EEG is a viable alternative to inpatient monitoring for patients with ID. Highlights three bullet points (one sentence each, with a maximum of 130 characters - including spacesO_LIRecording EEG remains a challenge for patients with epilepsy and ID C_LIO_LIThis study shows that patients with ID are more likely to disconnect early compared to those without ID C_LIO_LIStudy outcomes are not significantly different between those with and without ID, however some outcomes may be underpowered C_LI

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.