We read the Claassen et al. article with interest.1 While we commend the authors for looking into the frequency and significance of electrographic seizures in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), we disagree with their conclusions. We do not feel that it is necessary to perform continuous EEG monitoring (cEEG) on every patient who presents with ICH. This issue is also raised by Dr. Fountain in the accompanying editorial.2 Our main concern with the study by Claassen et al. is that it was a retrospective review of cEEG data of 102 patients who presented with ICH and underwent monitoring. EEG monitoring was initiated at the clinicians’ discretion usually for altered mental status. No details about the neurologic examination were provided. It has been our experience that a comprehensive neurologic examination repeated at regular intervals usually suffices to identify the majority of patients who have electrographic seizures. Furthermore, we have found that treating these patients aggressively with antiepileptic drugs—sometimes to the extent that all interictal epileptiform discharges are eliminated—does not result in the patient regaining consciousness. Whether the electrographic seizures are a signature of the damaged brain and their presence indicates some viable albeit malfunctioning neural tissue is unclear. Disclosure: The author reports no disclosures. # To the Editor: {#article-title-2} Claasen et al. describe EEG abnormalities in patients with intracerebral hemorrhages.1,3 This and several recent studies have a number of limitations: