TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis
AU - Grover, Larissa K.
AU - Hood, Donald C.
AU - Ghadiali, Quraish
AU - Grippo, Tomas M.
AU - Wenick, Adam S.
AU - Greenstein, Vivienne C.
AU - Behrens, Myles M.
AU - Odel, Jeffrey G.
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgements This work was supported by National Institutes of Health, National Eye Institute Grants: RO1-EY02115 (DCH). Adam S. Wenick was funded by a fellowship from Fight for Sight, New York, NY, USA.
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - 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° 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.
AB - 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° 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.
KW - Multifocal visual evoked potential
KW - Multiple sclerosis
KW - Optic neuritis
KW - VEP
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49049089352&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49049089352&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10633-007-9112-7
DO - 10.1007/s10633-007-9112-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 18204943
AN - SCOPUS:49049089352
SN - 0012-4486
VL - 117
SP - 121
EP - 128
JO - Documenta Ophthalmologica
JF - Documenta Ophthalmologica
IS - 2
ER -