Video quality using outpatient smartphone videos in epilepsy: Results from the OSmartViE study.
diagnostic test assessment
epilepsy semiology
epilepsy/seizures
nonepileptic seizures
video/EEG use in epilepsy
Journal
European journal of neurology
ISSN: 1468-1331
Titre abrégé: Eur J Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9506311
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
revised:
30
11
2020
received:
14
10
2020
accepted:
13
01
2021
pubmed:
20
1
2021
medline:
13
8
2021
entrez:
19
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of smartphone videos (SVs) of neurologic events in adult epilepsy outpatients. The use of home video recording in patients with neurological disease states is increasing. Experts interpretation of outpatient smartphone videos of seizures and neurological events has demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to inpatient video-electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring. A prospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted to evaluate SV quality in patients with paroxysmal neurologic events from August 15, 2015 through August 31, 2018. Epileptic seizures (ESs), psychogenic nonepileptic attacks (PNEAs), and physiologic nonepileptic events (PhysNEEs) were confirmed by video-EEG monitoring. Experts and senior neurology residents blindly viewed cloud-based SVs without clinical information. Quality ratings with regard to technical and operator-driven metrics were provided in responses to a survey. Forty-four patients (31 women, age 45.1 years [r = 20-82]) were included and 530 SVs were viewed by a mean of seven experts and six residents; one video per patient was reviewed for a mean of 133.8 s (r = 9-543). In all, 30 patients had PNEAs, 11 had ESs, and three had PhysNEEs. Quality was suitable in 70.8% of SVs (375/530 total views), with 36/44 (81.8%) patient SVs rated as adequate by the majority of reviewers. Accuracy improved with the presence of convulsive features from 72.4% to 98.2% in ESs and from 71.1% to 95.7% in PNEAs. An accurate diagnosis was given by all reviewers (100%) in 11/44 SVs (all PNEAs). Audio was rated as good by 86.2% of reviewers for these SVs compared with 75.4% for the remaining SVs (p = 0.01). Lighting was better in SVs associated with high accuracy (p = 0.06), but clarity was not (p = 0.59). Poor video quality yielded unknown diagnoses in 24.2% of the SVs reviewed. Features hindering diagnosis were limited interactivity, restricted field of view and short video duration. Smartphone video quality is adequate for clinical interpretation in the majority of patients with paroxysmal neurologic events. Quality can be optimized by encouraging interactivity with the patient, adequate duration of the SV, and enlarged field of view during videography. Quality limitations were primarily operational though accuracy remained for SV review of ESs and PNEAs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of smartphone videos (SVs) of neurologic events in adult epilepsy outpatients. The use of home video recording in patients with neurological disease states is increasing. Experts interpretation of outpatient smartphone videos of seizures and neurological events has demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to inpatient video-electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring.
METHODS
A prospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted to evaluate SV quality in patients with paroxysmal neurologic events from August 15, 2015 through August 31, 2018. Epileptic seizures (ESs), psychogenic nonepileptic attacks (PNEAs), and physiologic nonepileptic events (PhysNEEs) were confirmed by video-EEG monitoring. Experts and senior neurology residents blindly viewed cloud-based SVs without clinical information. Quality ratings with regard to technical and operator-driven metrics were provided in responses to a survey.
RESULTS
Forty-four patients (31 women, age 45.1 years [r = 20-82]) were included and 530 SVs were viewed by a mean of seven experts and six residents; one video per patient was reviewed for a mean of 133.8 s (r = 9-543). In all, 30 patients had PNEAs, 11 had ESs, and three had PhysNEEs. Quality was suitable in 70.8% of SVs (375/530 total views), with 36/44 (81.8%) patient SVs rated as adequate by the majority of reviewers. Accuracy improved with the presence of convulsive features from 72.4% to 98.2% in ESs and from 71.1% to 95.7% in PNEAs. An accurate diagnosis was given by all reviewers (100%) in 11/44 SVs (all PNEAs). Audio was rated as good by 86.2% of reviewers for these SVs compared with 75.4% for the remaining SVs (p = 0.01). Lighting was better in SVs associated with high accuracy (p = 0.06), but clarity was not (p = 0.59). Poor video quality yielded unknown diagnoses in 24.2% of the SVs reviewed. Features hindering diagnosis were limited interactivity, restricted field of view and short video duration.
CONCLUSIONS
Smartphone video quality is adequate for clinical interpretation in the majority of patients with paroxysmal neurologic events. Quality can be optimized by encouraging interactivity with the patient, adequate duration of the SV, and enlarged field of view during videography. Quality limitations were primarily operational though accuracy remained for SV review of ESs and PNEAs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1453-1462Investigateurs
Rachel Beekman
(R)
Diego Carvalho
(D)
Iris Vanessa Marin Collazo
(IV)
Erin Coonan
(E)
Jon Kleen
(J)
Alfonso Lopez
(A)
Erin Okazaki
(E)
Ashish Ranpura
(A)
Laura Mainardi Villarino
(LM)
Scott Yuan
(S)
Informations de copyright
© 2021 European Academy of Neurology.
Références
Beniczky SA, Fogarasi A, Neufeld M, et al. Seizure semiology inferred from clinical descriptions and from video recordings. How accurate are they? Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24:213-215.
Ristic AJ, Draskovic M, Bukumiric Z, Sokic D. Reliability of the witness descriptions of epileptic seizures and psychogenic non-epileptic attacks: a comparative analysis. Neurol Res. 2015;37:560-562.
Biswas S, Luz R, Brunnhuber F. Home video telemetry vs inpatient telemetry: a comparative study looking at video quality. Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2016;1:38-40.
Brunnhuber F, Amin D, Nguyen Y, Goyal S, Richardson MP. Development, evaluation and implementation of video-EEG telemetry at home. Seizure. 2014;23:338-343.
Chen DK, Graber KD, Anderson CT, Fisher RS. Sensitivity and specificity of video alone versus electroencephalography alone for the diagnosis of partial seizures. Epilepsy Behav. 2008;13:115-118.
Boukhvalova AK, Kowalczyk E, Harris T, et al. Identifying and quantifying neurological disability via smartphone. Front Neurol. 2018;9:740.
Casassa C, Rathbun Levit E, Goldenholz DM. Opinion and special articles: self-management in epilepsy: web-based seizure tracking applications. Neurology. 2018;91:e2027-e2030.
Goldenholz DM, Moss R, Jost DA, et al. Common data elements for epilepsy mobile health systems. Epilepsia. 2018;59:1020-1026.
Alix JJ, Kandler RH, Mordekar SR. The value of long term EEG monitoring in children: a comparison of ambulatory EEG and video telemetry. Seizure. 2014;23:662-665.
Benbadis SR, O'Neill E, Tatum WO, Heriaud L. Outcome of prolonged video-EEG monitoring at a typical referral epilepsy center. Epilepsia. 2004;45:1150-1153.
Tatum WO, Hirsch LJ, Gelfand MA, et al. Assessment of the predictive value of outpatient smartphone videos for diagnosis of epileptic seizures. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77:593-600.
Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research, 1st edn. London, UK: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1990.
Dorsey ER, Glidden AM, Holloway MR, Birbeck GL, Schwamm LH. Teleneurology and mobile technologies: the future of neurological care. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14:285-297.
Gedzelman ER, LaRoche SM. Long-term video EEG monitoring for diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:1979-1986.
Ojeda J, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez G, Río R, Ivañez V, López GS. Utility of home-made videos in an adult epilepsy clinic. J Neurol Disord. 2016;4:1000311.
Porter RJ, Sato S, Long RL. Video recording. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1985;37:73-82.
Gumnit RJ, Labiner DM, Fountain NB, National Association of Epilepsy Centers. Appendix C: Data on Specialized Epilepsy Centers: Report to the Institute of Medicine's Committee on the Public Health Dimensions of the Epilepsies. In: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Public Health Dimensions of the Epilepsies, England MJ, Liverman CT, Schultz AM, Strawbridge LM, eds. Epilepsy Across the Spectrum: Promoting Health and Understanding. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2012.
Beghi M, Erba G, Cornaggia CM, et al. Engaging psychiatrists in the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. What can they contribute? Seizure. 2017;52:182-187.
Benbir G, Demiray DY, Delil S, Yeni N. Interobserver variability of seizure semiology between two neurologist and caregivers. Seizure. 2013;22:548-552.
Dash D, Sharma A, Yuvraj K, et al. Can home video facilitate diagnosis of epilepsy type in a developing country? Epilepsy Res. 2016;125:19-23.
Erba G, Giussani G, Juersivich A, et al. The semiology of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures revisited: Can video alone predict the diagnosis? Preliminary data from a prospective feasibility study. Epilepsia. 2016;57:777-785.
Hanrahan B, Ghearing G, Urban A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of paroxysmal spells: Clinical history versus observation. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;78:73-77.
Jin B, Wu H, Xu J, et al. Analyzing reliability of seizure diagnosis based on semiology. Epilepsy Behav. 2014;41:197-202.
MacDonald T, Hill A, Phan T, Fitzgerald P, Seneviratne U. Psychiatry versus general physicians: who is better at differentiating epileptic from psychogenic non-epileptic seizures? Australas Psychiatry. 2012;20:379-383.
Malone A, Ryan CA, Fitzgerald A, Burgoyne L, Connolly S, Boylan GB. Interobserver agreement in neonatal seizure identification. Epilepsia. 2009;50:2097-2101.
Ramanujam B, Dash D, Tripathi M. Can home videos made on smartphones complement video-EEG in diagnosing psychogenic nonepileptic seizures? Seizure. 2018;62:95-98.
Ristic AJ, Mijovic K, Bukumiric Z, et al. Differential diagnosis of a paroxysmal neurological event: Do neurologists know how to clinically recognize it? Epilepsy Behav. 2017;67:77-83.
Seneviratne U, Rajendran D, Brusco M, Phan TG. How good are we at diagnosing seizures based on semiology? Epilepsia. 2012;53:e63-66.
Syed TU, LaFrance WC Jr, Kahriman ES, et al. Can semiology predict psychogenic nonepileptic seizures? A prospective study. Ann Neurol. 2011;69:997-1004.
Wasserman D, Herskovitz M. Epileptic vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: a video-based survey. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;73:42-45.
Serles W, Caramanos Z, Lindinger G, Pataraia E, Baumgartner C. Combining ictal surface-electroencephalography and seizure semiology improves patient lateralization in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2000;41:1567-1573.
Samuel M, Duncan JS. Use of the hand held video camcorder in the evaluation of seizures. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994;57:1417-1418.
Poushter J, Bishop C, Chwe H.Social Media Use Continues to Rise in Developing Countries but Plateaus Across Developed Ones. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in-developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/. Published 2018. Accessed March 1, 2020.
Chung SS, Gerber P, Kirlin KA. Ictal eye closure is a reliable indicator for psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Neurology. 2006;66:1730-1731.
Benbadis SR, LaFrance WC Jr, Papandonatos GD, et al. Interrater reliability of EEG-video monitoring. Neurology. 2009;73:843-846.
iPhone XS - Technical specifications. Apple, Inc. https://support.apple.com/kb/SP779?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US. Published 2020. Accessed March 1, 2020.
Wechsler LR. Advantages and limitations of teleneurology. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:349-354.
Siegel J, Tatum WO. Hand postures in primary and secondary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Neurology. 2016;87:1802-1805.
Fisher RS, Blum DE, DiVentura B, et al. Seizure diaries for clinical research and practice: limitations and future prospects. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24:304-310.
Tatum WO, Rubboli G, Kaplan PW, et al. Clinical utility of EEG in diagnosing and monitoring epilepsy in adults. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129:1056-1082.