Seizures-Child

Variant: 1 Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US head	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 6 Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 7 Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT brain	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 8 Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Peds Relative Radiation Level
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
FDG-PET/CT brain	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
SPECT or SPECT/CT brain perfusion	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US head	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Sarah S. Milla, MD^a; Anna Trofimova, MD, PhD^b; Maura E. Ryan, MD^c; Sumit Pruthi, MD, MBBS^d; Jeffrey P. Blount, MD^e; Nilesh K. Desai, MD^f; Orit A. Glenn, MD^g; Monica P. Islam, MD^h; Nadja Kadom, MDⁱ; David M. Mirsky, MD^j; John S. Myseros, MD^k; Sonia Partap, MD, MS^l; Rupa Radhakrishnan, MBBS, MS^m; Emily Rose, MDⁿ; Bruno P. Soares, MD^o; Andrew T. Trout, MD^p; Unni K. Udayasankar, MD^q; Matthew T. Whitehead, MD^r; Boaz Karmazyn, MD^s.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 1: Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 1: Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 1: Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Brain

Variant 1: Neonatal seizures, age 0 to 29 days. Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 2: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 2: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 2: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 2: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 2: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Simple febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 3: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 3: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 3: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 3: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 3: Children 6 months to 5 years of age. Complex febrile seizures. Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 4: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.

Variant 4: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 4: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 4: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 4: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 4: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Post-traumatic seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 5: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.

Variant 5: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 5: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 5: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 5: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 5: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Focal seizures, not including abusive head trauma. Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 6: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.

Variant 6: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 6: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 6: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 6: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 6: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Primary generalized seizure (neurologically normal). Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 7: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.

Variant 7: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.
A. US Head

Variant 7: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.
B. MRI Head

Variant 7: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.
C. CT Head

Variant 7: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 7: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Generalized seizure (neurologically abnormal). Initial imaging.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Variant 8: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.

Variant 8: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.
A. US Head

Variant 8: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.
B. MRI Head

Variant 8: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.
C. CT Head

Variant 8: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.
D. FDG-PET/CT brain

Variant 8: Children 1 month to 17 years of age. Intractable seizures or refractory epilepsy.
E. HMPAO SPECT or SPECT/CT Brain

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data and Statistics. Epilepsy Prevalence in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/epilepsy/data/index.html.
2.	Fisher RS, van Emde Boas W, Blume W, et al. Epileptic seizures and epilepsy: definitions proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and the International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE). Epilepsia. 2005; 46(4):470-472.
3.	Fisher RS, Cross JH, French JA, et al. Operational classification of seizure types by the International League Against Epilepsy: Position Paper of the ILAE Commission for Classification and Terminology. Epilepsia. 2017;58(4):522-530.
4.	Weitemeyer L, Kellinghaus C, Weckesser M, et al. The prognostic value of [F]FDG-PET in nonrefractory partial epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2005; 46(10):1654-1660.
5.	American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.
6.	Baykan B, Ertas NK, Ertas M, Aktekin B, Saygi S, Gokyigit A. Comparison of classifications of seizures: a preliminary study with 28 participants and 48 seizures. Epilepsy Behav. 2005; 6(4):607-612.
7.	Osmond E, Billetop A, Jary S, Likeman M, Thoresen M, Luyt K. Neonatal seizures: magnetic resonance imaging adds value in the diagnosis and prediction of neurodisability. Acta Paediatr. 103(8):820-6, 2014 Aug.
8.	Pellock JM. The classification of childhood seizures and epilepsy syndromes. Neurol Clin. 1990; 8(3):619-632.
9.	Scheuer ML, Pedley TA. The evaluation and treatment of seizures. N Engl J Med 1990; 323(21):1468-1474.
10.	Glass HC.. Neonatal seizures: advances in mechanisms and management. [Review]. Clin Perinatol. 41(1):177-90, 2014 Mar.
11.	Engel J, Jr. Report of the ILAE classification core group. Epilepsia. 2006; 47(9):1558-1568.
12.	Weeke LC, Groenendaal F, Toet MC, et al. The aetiology of neonatal seizures and the diagnostic contribution of neonatal cerebral magnetic resonance imaging. Dev Med Child Neurol. 57(3):248-56, 2015 Mar.
13.	Panayiotopoulos CP. Chapter 5: Neonatal Seizures and Neonatal Syndromes. The Epilepsies: Seizures, Syndromes and Management. Oxfordshire (UK): Bladon Medical Publishing; 2005.
14.	Calciolari G, Perlman JM, Volpe JJ. Seizures in the neonatal intensive care unit of the 1980s. Types, Etiologies, Timing. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1988; 27(3):119-123.
15.	Sheth RD. Neonatal Seizures. Available at: http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic240.htm. Accessed May 1 2012.
16.	Girard N, Raybaud C. Neonates with seizures: what to consider, how to image. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 19(4):685-708; vii, 2011 Nov.
17.	Glass HC, Bonifacio SL, Sullivan J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound injury in preterm infants with seizures. J Child Neurol. 2009; 24(9):1105-1111.
18.	Krishnamoorthy KS, Soman TB, Takeoka M, Schaefer PW. Diffusion-weighted imaging in neonatal cerebral infarction: clinical utility and follow-up. J Child Neurol. 2000; 15(9):592-602.
19.	Leijser LM, de Bruine FT, Steggerda SJ, van der Grond J, Walther FJ, van Wezel-Meijler G. Brain imaging findings in very preterm infants throughout the neonatal period: part I. Incidences and evolution of lesions, comparison between ultrasound and MRI. Early Hum Dev 2009;85:101-9.
20.	Hsieh DT, Chang T, Tsuchida TN, et al. New-onset afebrile seizures in infants: role of neuroimaging. Neurology. 2010; 74(2):150-156.
21.	Hesdorffer DC, Chan S, Tian H, et al. Are MRI-detected brain abnormalities associated with febrile seizure type? Epilepsia. 2008; 49(5):765-771.
22.	Jung DE, Ritacco DG, Nordli DR, Koh S, Venkatesan C. Early Anatomical Injury Patterns Predict Epilepsy in Head Cooled Neonates With Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy. Pediatr Neurol. 53(2):135-40, 2015 Aug.
23.	DiMario FJ, Jr. Children presenting with complex febrile seizures do not routinely need computed tomography scanning in the emergency department. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(2):528-530.
24.	Grill MF, Ng YT. "Simple febrile seizures plus (SFS+)": more than one febrile seizure within 24 hours is usually okay. Epilepsy & Behavior. 27(3):472-6, 2013 Jun.
25.	Kimiwada T, Juhasz C, Makki M, et al. Hippocampal and thalamic diffusion abnormalities in children with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2006; 47(1):167-175.
26.	Natsume J, Bernasconi N, Miyauchi M, et al. Hippocampal volumes and diffusion-weighted image findings in children with prolonged febrile seizures. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007; 115(4 Suppl):25-28.
27.	Hardasmalani MD, Saber M. Yield of diagnostic studies in children presenting with complex febrile seizures. Pediatr Emerg Care. 28(8):789-91, 2012 Aug.
28.	Provenzale JM, Barboriak DP, VanLandingham K, MacFall J, Delong D, Lewis DV. Hippocampal MRI signal hyperintensity after febrile status epilepticus is predictive of subsequent mesial temporal sclerosis. AJR. 2008; 190(4):976-983.
29.	Teng D, Dayan P, Tyler S, et al. Risk of intracranial pathologic conditions requiring emergency intervention after a first complex febrile seizure episode among children. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):304-308.
30.	Lee ST, Lui TN. Early seizures after mild closed head injury. J Neurosurg. 1992;76(3):435-439.
31.	Sharma S, Riviello JJ, Harper MB, Baskin MN. The role of emergent neuroimaging in children with new-onset afebrile seizures. Pediatrics. 2003; 111(1):1-5.
32.	Whelan H, Harmelink M, Chou E, et al. Complex febrile seizures-A systematic review. Dis Mon 2017;63:5-23.
33.	Garvey MA, Gaillard WD, Rusin JA, et al. Emergency brain computed tomography in children with seizures: who is most likely to benefit? J Pediatr. 1998; 133(5):664-669.
34.	Shinnar S, Bello JA, Chan S, et al. MRI abnormalities following febrile status epilepticus in children: the FEBSTAT study. Neurology. 2012;79(9):871-877.
35.	Jan M, Neville BG, Cox TC, Scott RC. Convulsive status epilepticus in children with intractable epilepsy is frequently focal in origin. Can J Neurol Sci. 2002; 29(1):65-67.
36.	Arango JI, Deibert CP, Brown D, Bell M, Dvorchik I, Adelson PD. Posttraumatic seizures in children with severe traumatic brain injury. Childs Nerv Syst. 28(11):1925-9, 2012 Nov.
37.	Young AC, Costanzi JB, Mohr PD, Forbes WS. Is routine computerised axial tomography in epilepsy worth while? Lancet. 1982; 2(8313):1446-1447.
38.	Ibrahim K, Appleton R. Seizures as the presenting symptom of brain tumours in children. Seizure. 2004; 13(2):108-112.
39.	Park JT, Chugani HT. Post-traumatic epilepsy in children-experience from a tertiary referral center. Pediatr Neurol. 52(2):174-81, 2015 Feb.
40.	Maytal J, Krauss JM, Novak G, Nagelberg J, Patel M. The role of brain computed tomography in evaluating children with new onset of seizures in the emergency department. Epilepsia. 2000; 41(8):950-954.
41.	Goldstein JL, Leonhardt D, Kmytyuk N, Kim F, Wang D, Wainwright MS. Abnormal neuroimaging is associated with early in-hospital seizures in pediatric abusive head trauma. Neurocrit Care. 15(1):63-9, 2011 Aug.
42.	Hart YM, Sander JW, Johnson AL, Shorvon SD. National General Practice Study of Epilepsy: recurrence after a first seizure. Lancet. 1990; 336(8726):1271-1274.
43.	Hirtz DG. Generalized tonic-clonic and febrile seizures. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1989; 36(2):365-382.
44.	Wootton-Gorges SL, Soares BP, Alazraki AL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Physical Abuse-Child. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S338-S49.
45.	Greiner MV, Greiner HM, Care MM, Owens D, Shapiro R, Holland K. Adding Insult to Injury: Nonconvulsive Seizures in Abusive Head Trauma. Journal of Child Neurology. 30(13):1778-84, 2015 Nov.
46.	Reinus WR, Wippold FJ, 2nd, Erickson KK. Seizure patient selection for emergency computed tomography. Ann Emerg Med. 1993; 22(8):1298-1303.
47.	Itomi K, Okumura A, Negoro T, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in cryptogenic West syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002; 44(2):107-111.
48.	Otsubo H, Chuang SH, Hwang PA, Gilday D, Hoffman HJ. Neuroimaging for investigation of seizures in children. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1992; 18(2):105-116.
49.	Dayan PS, Lillis K, Bennett J, et al. Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Intracranial Abnormalities in Unprovoked Seizures. Pediatrics. 136(2):e351-60, 2015 Aug.
50.	Lefkopoulos A, Haritanti A, Papadopoulou E, Karanikolas D, Fotiadis N, Dimitriadis AS. Magnetic resonance imaging in 120 patients with intractable partial seizures: a preoperative assessment. Neuroradiology. 2005; 47(5):352-361.
51.	Wu WC, Huang CC, Chung HW, et al. Hippocampal alterations in children with temporal lobe epilepsy with or without a history of febrile convulsions: evaluations with MR volumetry and proton MR spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(5):1270-1275.
52.	Avery RA, Zubal IG, Stokking R, et al. Decreased cerebral blood flow during seizures with ictal SPECT injections. Epilepsy Res. 2000;40(1):53-61.
53.	Aprahamian N, Harper MB, Prabhu SP, et al. Pediatric first time non-febrile seizure with focal manifestations: is emergent imaging indicated?. Seizure. 23(9):740-5, 2014 Oct.
54.	Avery RA, Spencer SS, Spanaki MV, Corsi M, Seibyl JP, Zubal IG. Effect of injection time on postictal SPET perfusion changes in medically refractory epilepsy. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999; 26(8):830-836.
55.	Weil S, Noachtar S, Arnold S, Yousry TA, Winkler PA, Tatsch K. Ictal ECD-SPECT differentiates between temporal and extratemporal epilepsy: confirmation by excellent postoperative seizure control. Nucl Med Commun. 2001; 22(2):233-237.
56.	Calcagni ML, Giordano A, Bruno I, et al. Ictal brain SPET during seizures pharmacologically provoked with pentylenetetrazol: a new diagnostic procedure in drug-resistant epileptic patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002; 29(10):1298-1306.
57.	Mohan KK, Chugani DC, Chugani HT. Positron emission tomography in pediatric neurology. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 1999; 6(2):111-119.
58.	Olszewska DA, Costello DJ. Assessment of the usefulness of magnetic resonance brain imaging in patients presenting with acute seizures. Ir J Med Sci. 183(4):621-4, 2014 Dec.
59.	Juhasz C, Chugani DC, Padhye UN, et al. Evaluation with alpha-[11C]methyl-L-tryptophan positron emission tomography for reoperation after failed epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia. 2004; 45(2):124-130.
60.	Kalnin AJ, Fastenau PS, deGrauw TJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in children with a first recognized seizure. Pediatr Neurol. 2008; 39(6):404-414.
61.	Singh RK, Stephens S, Berl MM, et al. Prospective study of new-onset seizures presenting as status epilepticus in childhood. Neurology. 74(8):636-42, 2010 Feb 23.
62.	Yang PJ, Berger PE, Cohen ME, Duffner PK. Computed tomography and childhood seizure disorders. Neurology. 1979;29(8):1084-1088.
63.	Lyons TW, Johnson KB, Michelson KA, et al. Yield of emergent neuroimaging in children with new-onset seizure and status epilepticus. Seizure. 35:4-10, 2016 Feb.
64.	Lascano AM, Perneger T, Vulliemoz S, et al. Yield of MRI, high-density electric source imaging (HD-ESI), SPECT and PET in epilepsy surgery candidates. Clinical Neurophysiology. 127(1):150-155, 2016 Jan.
65.	Thivard L, Bouilleret V, Chassoux F, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging can localize the epileptogenic zone in nonlesional extra-temporal refractory epilepsies when [(18)F]FDG-PET is not contributive. Epilepsy Res. 97(1-2):170-82, 2011 Nov.
66.	de Ribaupierre S, Fohlen M, Bulteau C, et al. Presurgical language mapping in children with epilepsy: clinical usefulness of functional magnetic resonance imaging for the planning of cortical stimulation. Epilepsia. 53(1):67-78, 2012 Jan.
67.	Allen L, Jones CT. Emergency department use of computed tomography in children with epilepsy and breakthrough seizure activity. J Child Neurol. 22(9):1099-101, 2007 Sep.
68.	Leach JL, Miles L, Henkel DM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in the resection region correlate with histopathological type, gliosis extent, and postoperative outcome in pediatric cortical dysplasia. J Neurosurg Pediatrics. 14(1):68-80, 2014 Jul.
69.	Kim YH, Kang HC, Kim DS, et al. Neuroimaging in identifying focal cortical dysplasia and prognostic factors in pediatric and adolescent epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia. 52(4):722-7, 2011 Apr.
70.	Menon RN, Radhakrishnan A, Parameswaran R, et al. Does F-18 FDG-PET substantially alter the surgical decision-making in drug-resistant partial epilepsy?. Epilepsy Behav. 51:133-9, 2015 Oct.
71.	Perissinotti A, Setoain X, Aparicio J, et al. Clinical Role of Subtraction Ictal SPECT Coregistered to MR Imaging and (18)F-FDG PET in Pediatric Epilepsy. J Nucl Med. 55(7):1099-105, 2014 Jul.
72.	Widjaja E, Shammas A, Vali R, et al. FDG-PET and magnetoencephalography in presurgical workup of children with localization-related nonlesional epilepsy. Epilepsia. 54(4):691-9, 2013 Apr.
73.	LoPinto-Khoury C, Sperling MR, Skidmore C, et al. Surgical outcome in PET-positive, MRI-negative patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 53(2):342-8, 2012 Feb.
74.	Fernandez S, Donaire A, Seres E, et al. PET/MRI and PET/MRI/SISCOM coregistration in the presurgical evaluation of refractory focal epilepsy. Epilepsy Research. 111:1-9, 2015 Mar.
75.	Shin HW, Jewells V, Sheikh A, et al. Initial experience in hybrid PET-MRI for evaluation of refractory focal onset epilepsy. Seizure. 31:1-4, 2015 Sep.
76.	Kudr M, Krsek P, Maton B, et al. Ictal SPECT is useful in localizing the epileptogenic zone in infants with cortical dysplasia. Epileptic Disord. 18(4):384-390, 2016 Dec 01.
77.	Desai A, Bekelis K, Thadani VM, et al. Interictal PET and ictal subtraction SPECT: sensitivity in the detection of seizure foci in patients with medically intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia. 54(2):341-50, 2013 Feb.
78.	Krsek P, Kudr M, Jahodova A, et al. Localizing value of ictal SPECT is comparable to MRI and EEG in children with focal cortical dysplasia. Epilepsia. 54(2):351-8, 2013 Feb.
79.	Chandra PS, Vaghania G, Bal CS, et al. Role of concordance between ictal-subtracted SPECT and PET in predicting long-term outcomes after epilepsy surgery. Epilepsy Res. 108(10):1782-9, 2014 Dec.
80.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.