Dataset Information

Pitfalls using smartphones videos in diagnosing functional seizures.

ABSTRACT: Expert review of seizure semiology looking at video recordings independent of EEG has been found to be useful for diagnosing functional seizures. Videos recorded outside the hospital containing "spells" have similar sensitivity to EEG when quality recordings are evaluated. Recently, smartphone videos were shown to serve as an adjunct to standard history and physical examination with similar diagnostic yields when compared to diagnostic video-EEG monitoring and reviewed by experts. However, caution must be exercised when interpreting videos of paroxysmal neurological events recorded by caregivers to ensure proper video quality is maintained and recorded event is representative. In this report, we present a case of initial identification of and event falsely suggesting functional seizures in a patient with epilepsy. The smartphone video of a "seizure" was recorded by his wife using her smartphone. Despite a quality recording and a history consistent with epilepsy, the smartphone video reviewed during evaluation in the clinic suggested a functional behavior in contrast to the history that suggested epilepsy manifest as convulsions. Instead of bilateral tonic-clonic motor movements, bizarre, intermittent non-clonic wild flinging movements and vocalization were identified on the smartphone video. The discordance between the clnical history and ideo prompted inpatient video-EEG monitoring. The same nonepileptic semiology was subsequently clarified to represent a physiological nonepileptic event. The event on the smartphone was typical of his agitated post-ictal state following an electroclinical tonic-clonic seizure. With treatment the seizures became controlled with antiseizure medication in long-term follow-up. We highlight the pitfalls using patient-recorded smartphone videos in patients diagnosed with epilepsy. Understanding the utility of smartphones as an adjunct to the clinical history will help in differentiating epileptic from functional seizures.

SUBMITTER: Freund B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiac auscultation is a cost-effective, noninvasive screening tool that can provide information about cardiovascular hemodynamics and disease. However, with advances in imaging and laboratory tests, the importance of cardiac auscultation is less appreciated in clinical practice. The widespread use of smartphones provides opportunities for nonmedical expert users to perform self-examination before hospital visits.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to assess the feasibility of cardiac auscultation using smartphones with no add-on devices for use at the prehospital stage.MethodsWe performed a pilot study of patients with normal and pathologic heart sounds. Heart sounds were recorded on the skin of the chest wall using 3 smartphones: the Samsung Galaxy S5 and Galaxy S6, and the LG G3. Recorded heart sounds were processed and classified by a diagnostic algorithm using convolutional neural networks. We assessed diagnostic accuracy, as well as sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.ResultsA total of 46 participants underwent heart sound recording. After audio file processing, 30 of 46 (65%) heart sounds were proven interpretable. Atrial fibrillation and diastolic murmur were significantly associated with failure to acquire interpretable heart sounds. The diagnostic algorithm classified the heart sounds into the correct category with high accuracy: Galaxy S5, 90% (95% CI 73%-98%); Galaxy S6, 87% (95% CI 69%-96%); and LG G3, 90% (95% CI 73%-98%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were also acceptable for the 3 devices.ConclusionsCardiac auscultation using smartphones was feasible. Discrimination using convolutional neural networks yielded high diagnostic accuracy. However, using the built-in microphones alone, the acquisition of reproducible and interpretable heart sounds was still a major challenge.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03273803; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03273803 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x6g1fHIu).

Project description:ImportanceMisdiagnosis of epilepsy is common. Video electroencephalogram provides a definitive diagnosis but is impractical for many patients referred for evaluation of epilepsy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of outpatient smartphone videos in epilepsy.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, masked, diagnostic accuracy study (the OSmartViE study) took place between August 31, 2015, and August 31, 2018, at 8 academic epilepsy centers in the United States and included a convenience sample of 44 nonconsecutive outpatients who volunteered a smartphone video during evaluation and subsequently underwent video electroencephalogram monitoring. Three epileptologists uploaded videos for physicians from the 8 epilepsy centers to review.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of performance (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for smartphone video-based diagnosis by experts and trainees (the index test) were compared with those for history and physical examination and video electroencephalogram monitoring (the reference standard).ResultsForty-four eligible epilepsy clinic outpatients (31 women [70.5%]; mean [range] age, 45.1 [20-82] years) submitted smartphone videos (530 total physician reviews). Final video electroencephalogram diagnoses included 11 epileptic seizures, 30 psychogenic nonepileptic attacks, and 3 physiologic nonepileptic events. Expert interpretation of a smartphone video was accurate in predicting a video electroencephalogram monitoring diagnosis of epileptic seizures 89.1% (95% CI, 84.2%-92.9%) of the time, with a specificity of 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-96.6%). Resident responses were less accurate for all metrics involving epileptic seizures and psychogenic nonepileptic attacks, despite greater confidence. Motor signs during events increased accuracy. One-fourth of the smartphone videos were correctly diagnosed by 100% of the reviewing physicians, composed solely of psychogenic attacks. When histories and physical examination results were combined with smartphone videos, correct diagnoses rose from 78.6% to 95.2%. The odds of receiving a correct diagnosis were 5.45 times greater using smartphone video alongside patient history and physical examination results than with history and physical examination alone (95% CI, 1.01-54.3; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceOutpatient smartphone video review by experts has predictive and additive value for diagnosing epileptic seizures. Smartphone videos may reliably aid psychogenic nonepileptic attacks diagnosis for some people.

Dataset Information

Pitfalls using smartphones videos in diagnosing functional seizures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets