Literature DB >> 7224832

Visual evoked potentials (VEP) elicited by checkerboard versus foveal stimulation in multiple sclerosis. A clinical study in 235 patients.

G Oepen, C Brauner, M Doerr, U Thoden.   

Abstract

In 235 patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (MS) the diagnostic value of visual evoked potentials (VEP) elicited by checkerboard and central foveal stimulation was compared. No significant difference was found. Both methods are supplementary in diagnostic value. Foveal stimulation may provide an additional diagnostic clue. Normal VEPs do not exclude a prior retrobulbar neuritis. Electronystagmography and examination of CSF are at least essential for the diagnosis of MS as VEPs. The combination of these methods increase the accuracy of diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1981        PMID: 7224832     DOI: 10.1007/bf01833159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970)


  10 in total

1.  Foveal versus peripheral retinal responses: a new analysis for early diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  P M Rossini; M Pirchio; D Sollazzo; C Caltagirone
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1979-11

2.  [Recording of visual evoked potentials in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis].

Authors:  F Chain; J Mallecourt; M Leblanc; F Lhermitte
Journal:  Rev Neurol (Paris)       Date:  1977-02       Impact factor: 2.607

3.  The comparison of small-size rectangle and checkerboard stimulation for the evaluation of delayed visual evoked responses in patients suspected of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  M Hennerici; D Wenzel; H J Freund
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 13.501

4.  Delayed pattern-evoked responses in optic neuritis in relation to visual acuity.

Authors:  A M Halliday; W I McDonald; J Mushin
Journal:  Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K       Date:  1973

5.  [Methods and evaluation of visually evoked EEG potentials in cases of suspected multiple sclerosis (author's transl)].

Authors:  D Lehmann; Z Mir
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1976-08-06       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Pattern shift visual evoked responses. Two hundred patients with optic neuritis and/or multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  F Shahrokhi; K H Chiappa; R R Young
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1978-02

7.  Practical application of patterned visual evoked responses in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  K Kayed; O Røsjø; B Kåss
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 3.209

8.  Visual pattern evoked responses and blink reflexes in assessment of MS diagnosis. A clinical study of 135 multiple sclerosis/pathol.

Authors:  K Lowitzsch; U Kuhnt; C Sakmann; K Maurer; H C Hopf; D Schott; K Thäter
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1976-07-15       Impact factor: 4.849

9.  Pattern reversal evoked visual potential in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  W B Matthews; D G Small; M Small; E Pountney
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1977-10       Impact factor: 10.154

10.  Quantitative studies of saccadic and pursuit eye movements in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  F L Mastaglia; J L Black; D W Collins
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1979-12       Impact factor: 13.501

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Foveal interocular time thresholds and latency differences in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  W H Ehrenstein; K Manny; G Oepen
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Central nervous system involvement in optic neuritis.

Authors:  E A Sanders; J P Reulen; L A Hogenhuis
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 10.154

3.  The significance of luminance on visual evoked potentials in diagnosis of MS.

Authors:  H C Diener; W Koch; J Dichgans
Journal:  Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970)       Date:  1982

4.  Clinical application of motion-onset visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Z Kubová; M Kuba
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.