Expert accuracy and inter-rater agreement of "must-know" EEG findings for adult and child neurology residents.

Abstract

We published a list of "must-know" routine EEG (rEEG) findings for trainees based on expert opinion. Here, we studied the accuracy and inter-rater agreement (IRA) of these "must-know" rEEG findings among international experts. A previously validated online rEEG examination was disseminated to EEG experts. It consisted of a survey and 30 multiple-choice questions predicated on the previously published "must-know" rEEG findings divided into four domains: normal, abnormal, normal variants, and artifacts. Questions contained de-identified 10-20-s epochs of EEG that were considered unequivocal examples by five EEG experts. The examination was completed by 258 international EEG experts. Overall mean accuracy and IRA (AC1) were 81% and substantial (0.632), respectively. The domain-specific mean accuracies and IRA were: 76%, moderate (0.558) (normal); 78%, moderate (0.575) (abnormal); 85%, substantial (0.678) (normal variants); 85%, substantial (0.740) (artifacts). Academic experts had a higher accuracy than private practice experts (82% vs. 77%; p = .035). Country-specific overall mean accuracies and IRA were: 92%, almost perfect (0.836) (U.S.); 86%, substantial (0.762) (Brazil); 79%, substantial (0.646) (Italy); and 72%, moderate (0.496) (India). In conclusion, collective expert accuracy and IRA of "must-know" rEEG findings are suboptimal and heterogeneous. We recommend the development and implementation of pragmatic, accessible, country-specific ways to measure and improve the expert accuracy and IRA.