The effect of contrast reduction on pattern-reversal VEPs in suspected multiple sclerosis and optic neuritis

Documenta Ophthalmologica

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 157-161

  Davidson, Arian W ^a   Scott, Richard F ^b   Mitchell, Keith W ^a  

^a ROYAL VICTORIA INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contrast; Multiple sclerosis (MS); Optic neuritis (ON); Sensitivity; VEP

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMORBIDITY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OPTIC NEURITIS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 16344380841     PISSN: 00124486     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10633-004-3831-9     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. AM Halliday WI McDonald J Mushin 1972 Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1 7758 982-5
2. WI McDonald A Compston G Edan D Goodkin HP Hartung FD Lublin 2001 Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 50 1 121-7 10.1002/ana.1032 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FitFOhug%3D%3D 11456302
3. GS Gronseth EJ Ashman 2000 Practice parameter: The usefulness of evoked potentials in identifying clinically silent lesions in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review): Report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American academy of neurology. Neurology 54 9 1720-5
4. KH Lee SA Hashimoto JP Hooge LF Kastrukoff JJF Oger DKB Li 1991 Magnetic resonance imaging of the head in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A prospective 2-year follow-up with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT. Neurology 41 5 657-60
5. AL Hume SG Waxman 1988 Evoked potentials in suspected multiple sclerosis: Diagnostic value and prediction of clinical source. J Neurol Sci 83 2-3 191-210
6. WB Matthews JR Wattam-Bell E Pountney 1982 Evoked potentials in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: A follow up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 45 4 303-7
7. G Filippini GC Comi V Cosi L Bevilacqua M Ferrarini V Martinelli 1994 Sensitivities and predictive values of paraclinical tests for diagnosing multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 241 3 132-7
8. Anonymous 1994 Guideline nine: Guidelines on evoked potentials. American electroencephalographic society. J Clin Neurophysiol 11 1 40-73
9. JM Bland DG Altman 1986 Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 8476 307-10 1:STN:280:BimC3MjhvFc%3D 2868172
10. JV Odom M Bach C Barber M Brigell MF Marmor AP Tormene 2004 Visual evoked potentials standard (2004). Doc Ophthalmol 108 115-23