Download PDFPDF
The term ‘generalised’ in EEG reports: too much ambiguity?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Ambiguity in EEG lies in the eyes of the beholder

    The term generalized in EEG is certainly ambiguous and can be a cause of confusion, especially to a reader who is not formally trained in neurophysiology. As a neurology resident in training, the importance of personally reviewing the patient's CT or MRI scan was impressed upon me time and time again. Do not just take the radiologist's report at face value, look at the pictures yourself since you after seeing the patient...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.

Other content recommended for you