Literature DB >> 21479648

Prognostic value of multimodal evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis: the EP score.

Paolo Invernizzi1, Laura Bertolasi, Maria Rachele Bianchi, Marco Turatti, Alberto Gajofatto, Maria Donata Benedetti.   

Abstract

Evoked potentials (EPs) have long been used as diagnostic tools in multiple sclerosis (MS), although their importance decreased as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) became available. However, the prognostic value of EPs in MS has not been completely established. The aim of the study was to analyze the prognostic significance of EPs in a cohort of MS cases. From the Verona University Hospital MS Clinic database we retrospectively identified 80 MS patients who underwent a complete neurophysiological evaluation, including visual, brain stem, somatosensory and motor EPs and who were followed for at least 5 years after the study. EPs abnormalities were quantified through an index of global EPs alteration (EP score). The relationship between EP score and disability in terms of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier survival method and Spearman ρ correlation coefficient. ROC curves were used to determine the best EP score cut off to predict different EDSS endpoints. For each endpoint, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of EP score were calculated. We found a significant correlation (p < 0.001) between EP score and EDSS score at the time of neurophysiological study and at 1, 3 and 5 years of follow-up, particularly for motor and somatosensory EPs. Kaplan-Meier curves confirmed an increased risk of disability in those patients with EP score higher than the median value. EP score of 8 or 9 showed the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting EDSS 4.0 and 6.0. EPs are reliable procedures to predict disability in MS patients. The correlation between EPs abnormalities and EDSS is higher than between conventional MRI and EDSS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21479648     DOI: 10.1007/s00415-011-6033-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol        ISSN: 0340-5354            Impact factor:   4.849


  19 in total

1.  Visual and motor evoked potentials in the course of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  P Fuhr; A Borggrefe-Chappuis; C Schindler; L Kappos
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 13.501

2.  Evoked potential abnormality scores are a useful measure of disease burden in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  P O'Connor; P Marchetti; L Lee; M Perera
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 10.422

3.  MRI T2 lesion burden in multiple sclerosis: a plateauing relationship with clinical disability.

Authors:  D K B Li; U Held; J Petkau; M Daumer; F Barkhof; F Fazekas; J A Frank; L Kappos; D H Miller; J H Simon; J S Wolinsky; M Filippi
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2006-05-09       Impact factor: 9.910

4.  Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination.

Authors:  C Lucchinetti; W Brück; J Parisi; B Scheithauer; M Rodriguez; H Lassmann
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 10.422

5.  Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  F D Lublin; S C Reingold
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 9.910

6.  Gray matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Elizabeth Fisher; Jar-Chi Lee; Kunio Nakamura; Richard A Rudick
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 10.422

7.  Statistical mapping analysis of lesion location and neurological disability in multiple sclerosis: application to 452 patient data sets.

Authors:  Arnaud Charil; Alex P Zijdenbos; Jonathan Taylor; Cyrus Boelman; Keith J Worsley; Alan C Evans; Alain Dagher
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Predicting clinical progression in multiple sclerosis with the magnetic resonance disease severity scale.

Authors:  Rohit Bakshi; Mohit Neema; Brian C Healy; Zsuzsanna Liptak; Rebecca A Betensky; Guy J Buckle; Susan A Gauthier; James Stankiewicz; Dominik Meier; Svetlana Egorova; Ashish Arora; Zachary D Guss; Bonnie Glanz; Samia J Khoury; Charles R G Guttmann; Howard L Weiner
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  2008-11

Review 9.  Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the "McDonald Criteria".

Authors:  Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Gilles Edan; Massimo Filippi; Hans-Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Luanne M Metz; Henry F McFarland; Paul W O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Brian G Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 10.422

10.  Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  W I McDonald; A Compston; G Edan; D Goodkin; H P Hartung; F D Lublin; H F McFarland; D W Paty; C H Polman; S C Reingold; M Sandberg-Wollheim; W Sibley; A Thompson; S van den Noort; B Y Weinshenker; J S Wolinsky
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 10.422

View more
  12 in total

1.  Progress in multiple sclerosis research in the last year.

Authors:  Daniela Galimberti; Elio Scarpini
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Comparison of brainstem reflex recordings and evoked potentials with clinical and MRI data to assess brainstem dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: a short-term follow-up.

Authors:  I Magnano; G M Pes; M P Cabboi; G Pilurzi; F Ginatempo; A Achene; A Salis; M Conti; Franca Deriu
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Mechanisms and pharmacology of neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  T Iannitti; B J Kerr; B K Taylor
Journal:  Curr Top Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014

Review 4.  Are cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers useful in predicting the prognosis of multiple sclerosis patients?

Authors:  Alberto Gajofatto; Matilde Bongianni; Gianluigi Zanusso; Maria Donata Benedetti; Salvatore Monaco
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Multimodal evoked potentials for functional quantification and prognosis in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Xavier Giffroy; Nathalie Maes; Adelin Albert; Pierre Maquet; Jean-Michel Crielaard; Dominique Dive
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.474

6.  Tongue somatosensory evoked potentials reflect midbrain involvement in patients with clinically isolated syndrome.

Authors:  Magdalena Krbot Skorić; Ivan Adamec; Luka Crnošija; Tereza Gabelić; Barbara Barun; Ivana Zadro; Silva Butković Soldo; Mario Habek
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2016-12-31       Impact factor: 1.351

Review 7.  A new role for evoked potentials in MS? Repurposing evoked potentials as biomarkers for clinical trials in MS.

Authors:  Martin Hardmeier; Letizia Leocani; Peter Fuhr
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 6.312

8.  Exploring the predictive value of the evoked potentials score in MS within an appropriate patient population: a hint for an early identification of benign MS?

Authors:  Nicolò Margaritella; Laura Mendozzi; Massimo Garegnani; Raffaello Nemni; Elena Colicino; Elisabetta Gilardi; Luigi Pugnetti
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.474

9.  Improved characterization of visual evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis by topographic analysis.

Authors:  Martin Hardmeier; Florian Hatz; Yvonne Naegelin; Darren Hight; Christian Schindler; Ludwig Kappos; Margitta Seeck; Christoph M Michel; Peter Fuhr
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 10.  Clinical, MRI, and CSF markers of disability progression in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Alberto Gajofatto; Massimiliano Calabrese; Maria Donata Benedetti; Salvatore Monaco
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2013-11-10       Impact factor: 3.434

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.