4.3 Article

Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 412-426

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458509359782

关键词

multifocal visual evoked potentials; multiple sclerosis; optic neuritis; optical coherence tomography; standard automated perimetry; subclinical

资金

  1. NIH [P30 EY07751, T35 007088]
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  3. University of Houston GEAR
  4. Minnie Flaura Turner

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) measure local response amplitude and latency in the field of vision. Objective: To compare the sensitivity of mfVEP, Humphrey visual field (HVF) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in detecting visual abnormality in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Methods: mfVEP, HVF, and OCT (retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL]) were performed in 47 MS-ON eyes (last optic neuritis [ON] attack >= 6 months prior) and 65 MS-no-ON eyes without ON history. Criteria to define an eye as abnormal were: (1) mfVEP amplitude/latency - either amplitude or latency probability plots meeting cluster criteria with 95% specificity; (2) mfVEP amplitude or latency alone (specificity: 97% and 98%, respectively); and (3) HVF and OCT, mean deviation and RNFL thickness meeting p < 0.05, respectively. Results: MfVEP (amplitude/latency) identified more abnormality in MS-ON eyes (89%) than HVF (72%), OCT (62%), mfVEP amplitude (66%) or latency (67%) alone. Eighteen percent of MS-no-ON eyes were abnormal for both mfVEP (amplitude/latency) and HVF compared with 8% with OCT. Agreement between tests ranged from 60% to 79%. mfVEP (amplitude/latency) categorized an additional 15% of MS-ON eyes as abnormal compared with HVF and OCT combined. Conclusions: mfVEP, which detects both demyelination (increased latency) and neural degeneration (reduced amplitude), revealed more abnormality than HVF or OCT in MS patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据