Home › Research › Digital health tools
Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society [RETIRED]
Nuwer M.. Neurology, 1997-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
(Class II and III evidence, Type D recommendation). On the basis of clinical and scientific evidence, opinions of most experts, and the technical and methodologic shortcomings, QEEG is not recommended for use in civil or criminal judicial proceedings. (Strong Class III evidence, Type E recommendation). Because of the very substantial risk of erroneous interpretations, it is unacceptable for any EEG brain mapping or other QEEG techniques to be used clinically by those who are not physicians highly skilled in clinical EEG interpretation. (Strong Class III evidence, Type E recommendation).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Nuwer, M. (1997). Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society [RETIRED]. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.49.1.277
Vancouver
Nuwer M. Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society [RETIRED]. Neurology. 1997. doi:10.1212/wnl.49.1.277. PMID: 9222209.
BibTeX
@article{nuwer1997-9222209,
author = {Nuwer, M.},
title = {{Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society [RETIRED]}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {1997},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.49.1.277},
pmid = {9222209},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.49.1.277}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- (Class II and III evidence, Type D recommendation).
- On the basis of clinical and scientific evidence, opinions of most experts, and the technical and methodologic shortcomings, QEEG is not recommended for use in civil or criminal judicial proceedings.
- (Strong Class III evidence, Type E recommendation).
- Because of the very substantial risk of erroneous interpretations, it is unacceptable for any EEG brain mapping or other QEEG techniques to be used clinically by those who are not physicians highly skilled in clinical EEG interpretation.
- (Strong Class III evidence, Type E recommendation).
Why it matters
This American Academy of Neurology report states that quantitative EEG is not recommended for use in civil or criminal judicial proceedings and should only be used clinically by physicians highly skilled in clinical EEG interpretation. It concerns EEG practice standards and does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | 4 / 4 | Neurology: journal h-index 525 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 6 / 7 | Cited 388 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 12.5 citations a year over 31 year(s) since 1997 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 6.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 1 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 40 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Marc R. Nuwer: h-index 52 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of California, Los Angeles: institution h-index 1,923 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9222209) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also in Digital health tools
178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.