PURPOSE: To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS). METHODS: mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48 degrees in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15' and 60'. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained. RESULTS: For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60') test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. CONCLUSION: As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.
PURPOSE: To compare conventional visual evoked potential (cVEP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) methods in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis (ON/MS). METHODS: mfVEPs and cVEPs were obtained from eyes of the 19 patients with multiple sclerosis confirmed on MRI scans, and from eyes of 40 normal controls. For the mfVEP, the display was a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 48 degrees in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Monocular cVEPs were obtained using a checkerboard stimulus with check sizes of 15' and 60'. For the cVEP, the latency of P100 for both check sizes were measured, while for the mfVEP, the mean latency, percent of locations with abnormal latency, and clusters of contiguous abnormal locations were obtained. RESULTS: For a specificity of 95%, the mfVEP(interocular cluster criterion) showed the highest sensitivity (89.5%) of the 5 monocular or interocular tests. Similarly, when a combined monocular/interocular criterion was employed, the mfVEP(cluster criterion) had the highest sensitivity (94.7%)/specificity (90%), missing only one patient. The combined monocular/interocular cVEP(60') test had a sensitivity (84.2%)/specificity (90%), missing 3 patients, 2 more than did the monocular/interocular mfVEP(cluster) test. CONCLUSION: As the cVEP is more readily available and currently a shorter test, it should be used to screen patients for ON/MS with mfVEP testing added when the cVEP test is negative and the damage is local.
Authors: D C Hood; X Zhang; V C Greenstein; S Kangovi; J G Odel; J M Liebmann; R Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Colin Barber; Mitchell Brigell; Michael F Marmor; Alma Patrizia Tormene; Graham E Holder Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: E Bo Yang; Donald C Hood; Chris Rodarte; Xian Zhang; Jeffrey G Odel; Myles M Behrens Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.799
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: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Scott Ketner; Christopher C Teng; Joshua R Ehrlich; Ali S Raza; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: L De Santiago; A Fernández; R Blanco; C Pérez-Rico; J M Rodríguez-Ascariz; R Barea; J M Miguel-Jiménez; C Amo; E M Sánchez-Morla; L Boquete Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Celso Tello; Carlos Gustavo V De Moraes; Tiago S Prata; Peter Derr; Jayson Patel; John Siegfried; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 2.379