Clinical Magnetoencephalography Practice in the United States Ten Years Later: A Survey-Based Reappraisal : Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Invited Review

Clinical Magnetoencephalography Practice in the United States Ten Years Later: A Survey-Based Reappraisal

Bagić, Anto I.*; Burgess, Richard C.

Author Information
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 37(6):p 592-598, November 2020. | DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000693



Broader utilization of magnetoencephalography (MEG) and optimization of clinical practice remain strategic goals of the American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society. Despite the implementation of the first MEG Clinical Practice Guidelines, clinical adoption has been less than expected, prompting a reassessment.


Twenty-five clinical MEG centers were invited to participate anonymously in a survey of clinical practice.


Centers (N = 18) mostly operated within an academic medical center (10/18), were owned by the “hospital” (10/18), associated with a level 4 National Association of Epilepsy center (15/18), and directed by neurologists (10/18). A total of 873 (median 59) epilepsy studies, 1,179 evoked fields (of all types), and 1,607 (median 30) research MEG studies were reported. Fourteen of 17 centers serve children (median 35%), but only 5 of 14 sedate children for MEG. All (N = 14) centers record EEG simultaneous with MEG, and 57% used dipole source localization. The median reporting time for epilepsy studies was 12 and 10 days for presurgical mapping studies. Most (12/14) were favorable toward the Clinical Practice Guidelines and “formalized certification” but were against mandating the latter.


A plateau in MEG volumes suggests that MEG has not become a part of the standard of care, and correspondingly, the Clinical Practice Guidelines appeared to have had little impact on clinical practice. The American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society must continue to engage magnetoencephalographers, potential referrers, and vendors.


In the article that appear on page 592 of the November 2020 issue of the Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, the article was incorrectly listed as an Invited Review. The article is Original Research.1

Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 38(2):160, March 2021.

Copyright © 2020 by the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

You can read the full text of this article if you:

Access through Ovid