RESUMEN
Importance: Misdiagnosis of epilepsy is common. Video electroencephalogram provides a definitive diagnosis but is impractical for many patients referred for evaluation of epilepsy. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of outpatient smartphone videos in epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, masked, diagnostic accuracy study (the OSmartViE study) took place between August 31, 2015, and August 31, 2018, at 8 academic epilepsy centers in the United States and included a convenience sample of 44 nonconsecutive outpatients who volunteered a smartphone video during evaluation and subsequently underwent video electroencephalogram monitoring. Three epileptologists uploaded videos for physicians from the 8 epilepsy centers to review. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures of performance (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for smartphone video-based diagnosis by experts and trainees (the index test) were compared with those for history and physical examination and video electroencephalogram monitoring (the reference standard). Results: Forty-four eligible epilepsy clinic outpatients (31 women [70.5%]; mean [range] age, 45.1 [20-82] years) submitted smartphone videos (530 total physician reviews). Final video electroencephalogram diagnoses included 11 epileptic seizures, 30 psychogenic nonepileptic attacks, and 3 physiologic nonepileptic events. Expert interpretation of a smartphone video was accurate in predicting a video electroencephalogram monitoring diagnosis of epileptic seizures 89.1% (95% CI, 84.2%-92.9%) of the time, with a specificity of 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-96.6%). Resident responses were less accurate for all metrics involving epileptic seizures and psychogenic nonepileptic attacks, despite greater confidence. Motor signs during events increased accuracy. One-fourth of the smartphone videos were correctly diagnosed by 100% of the reviewing physicians, composed solely of psychogenic attacks. When histories and physical examination results were combined with smartphone videos, correct diagnoses rose from 78.6% to 95.2%. The odds of receiving a correct diagnosis were 5.45 times greater using smartphone video alongside patient history and physical examination results than with history and physical examination alone (95% CI, 1.01-54.3; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Outpatient smartphone video review by experts has predictive and additive value for diagnosing epileptic seizures. Smartphone videos may reliably aid psychogenic nonepileptic attacks diagnosis for some people.