Response to: Guidelines for the clinical use in epilepsy surgery evaluation of magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography for source localization

Le résumé fourni par la source

We thank Drs. Bagic and Burgess1 for their interest in our publication2 and insightful comments. The issues raised by them were already pointed out to us by Dr. Funke (University of Texas Health Science Center), in response to which we had submitted an erratum to the journal just 3 days prior to receiving this letter. We understand that the term “electromagnetic source localization” can be considered ambiguous in a clinical context. However, our phrasing was based on the underlying mathematical and physical models of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), which are very similar. The available literature on the clinical potential of MEG cannot be denied, and we certainly do not underestimate its value. Nevertheless, the goal of our publication was to present a survey on the current use of MEG (and EEG) in the context of published formal guidelines, rather than providing a review of the literature. Such a systematic review on EEG and MEG source localization techniques is currently undertaken within the E-PILEPSY consortium. In search for guidelines, the MEG recommendations published by the American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society—to which Drs. Bagic and Burgess refer—unfortunately were not identified, and this omission also escaped the attention of the collaborating coauthors who use MEG. These observations indeed highlight the importance of intercontinental collaboration to achieve harmonization of presurgical evaluation. On behalf of all authors, This work arose from the project E-PILEPSY, which has received funding from the European Union, in the framework of the Health Program (2008–2013). The authors disclose no financial conflict of interest. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.