Summary
Assessment of new technology is an important part of the evolving art of medicine. For a variety of reasons, it is appropriate to restrict clinical applications of new technology to those tests which have been shown to be safe and effective. Efficacy of new EEG technology can be assessed through a variety of standard procedures, generally based on controlled, well organized clinical studies. Scientific reports using new EEG technology all too often fail to meet the standards traditionally expected for such clinical trials. Many such studies were never designed to be clinical trials. Misunderstandings occur when reports of scientific studies and informal clinical series become confused with formal clinical trials of efficacy. Based upon examples given during the 1991 ISBET meeting symposium on discriminant analysis, examples are discussed regarding how well individual kinds of presentations can be used to help clarify the generic clinical efficacy of the presented diagnostic tests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
John, E.R., Prichep, L.S., Fridman, J. and Easton, P. Neurometrics: Computer-assisted differential diagnosis of brain dysfunctions. Science 1988, 239: 162–169.
Longstreth, W.T., Koepsell, T.D. and van Belle, G. Clinical Neuroepidemiology: I. Diagnosis. Arch. Neurol., 1987a, 44: 1091–1099.
Longstreth, W.T., Koepsell, T.D. and van Belle, G. Clinical neuroepidemiology. II. Outcomes. Arch. Neurol., 1987b, 44: 1196–1202.
Nuwer, M.R. Quantitative EEG: I. Techniques and problems of frequency analysis and topographic mapping. J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1988, 5: 1–43.
Nuwer, M.R. On the controversies about clinical use of EEG brain mapping. Brain Topography, 1990, 3: 103–111.
Nuwer, M.R., Miller, E.N., Visscher, B.R. and Satz, P. Early neurologic abnormalities in HIV infection. New Eng. J. Med., 1991, 324: 492–493.
McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. How to read clinical journals: II. To learn about a diagnostic test. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 1981, 124: 703–710.
Ransohoff, D.F. and Feinstien, A.R. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. New Eng. J. Med., 1978, 299: 926–930.
Sackett, D.L., Haynes, R.B. and Tugwell, P. Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine. Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1985.
Sheps, S.B. and Schechter, M.T. The assessment of diagnostic tests: A survey of current medical research. JAMA, 1984, 252: 2418–2422.
Thatcher, R.W., Walker, R.A., Gerson, I. and Geisler, F.H. EEG discriminant analyses of mild head trauma. Electroenceph. Clinical Neurophysiol., 1989, 73: 94–106.
Wasson, J.H., Sox, H.C., Neff, R.K. and Goldman, L. Clinical prediction rules: Applications and methodological standards. New Eng. J. Med., 1985, 793–799.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nuwer, M.R. On the process for evaluating Proposed new diagnostic EEG tests. Brain Topogr 4, 243–247 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01135561
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01135561