OBJECTIVE: To monitor the difference in conversion rates to multiple sclerosis (MS) in 46 patients with optic neuritis between patients with multifocal visual evoked potential latency delay and those with normal latency. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Metropolitan neuro-ophthalmology clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six patients with optic neuritis who did not have a diagnosis of MS on enrollment in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Conversion to MS according to the McDonald criteria. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that only 22 subjects had multifocal visual evoked potential latency delay. Over 1 year, 36.4% of patients with optic neuritis with latency delays progressed clinically to MS compared with 0% of those with normal latencies (P = .03, chi2). CONCLUSION: This may indicate that multifocal visual evoked potential latency delay can assist in predicting progression to future MS.
OBJECTIVE: To monitor the difference in conversion rates to multiple sclerosis (MS) in 46 patients with optic neuritis between patients with multifocal visual evoked potential latency delay and those with normal latency. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Metropolitan neuro-ophthalmology clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six patients with optic neuritis who did not have a diagnosis of MS on enrollment in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Conversion to MS according to the McDonald criteria. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that only 22 subjects had multifocal visual evoked potential latency delay. Over 1 year, 36.4% of patients with optic neuritis with latency delays progressed clinically to MS compared with 0% of those with normal latencies (P = .03, chi2). CONCLUSION: This may indicate that multifocal visual evoked potential latency delay can assist in predicting progression to future MS.
Authors: Madhan Kolappan; Andrew P D Henderson; Thomas M Jenkins; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Gordon T Plant; Alan J Thompson; David H Miller Journal: J Neurol Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Audrey R Frohman; Zane Schnurman; Amy Conger; Darrel Conger; Shin Beh; Benjamin Greenberg; Erich Sutter; Peter A Calabresi; Laura J Balcer; Teresa C Frohman; Elliot M Frohman Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Archana A Gupta; Di Ding; Richard K Lee; Robert B Levy; Sanjoy K Bhattacharya Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Axel Petzold; Mike P Wattjes; Fiona Costello; Jose Flores-Rivera; Clare L Fraser; Kazuo Fujihara; Jacqueline Leavitt; Romain Marignier; Friedemann Paul; Sven Schippling; Christian Sindic; Pablo Villoslada; Brian Weinshenker; Gordon T Plant Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Alexander Klistorner; H Arvind; T Nguyen; R Garrick; M Paine; S Graham; J O'Day; C Yiannikas Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Elena H Martínez-Lapiscina; Elena Fraga-Pumar; Iñigo Gabilondo; Eloy Martínez-Heras; Ruben Torres-Torres; Santiago Ortiz-Pérez; Sara Llufriu; Ana Tercero; Magi Andorra; Marc Figueras Roca; Erika Lampert; Irati Zubizarreta; Albert Saiz; Bernardo Sanchez-Dalmau; Pablo Villoslada Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2014-12-15