 |
|
Comparison of the Pattern and Diffuse-Light Visual Evoked Responses in Definite Multiple Sclerosis
W. Bruce Wilson, MD;
Robert B. Keyser, MD
Arch Neurol. 1980;37(1):30-34.
Abstract
| |
• We prospectively studied 100 patients with "definite" multiple sclerosis to determine which of three methods of stimulation most consistently had results that disclosed abnormalities in the visual evoked response when they were compared with those from normal controls. The three methods were diffuse flashes of light, intermittent reversing pattern, and constant luminous but reversing pattern. The most sensitive indicator of abnormality of the visual evoked response was the latency of the major occipital positive peak. Virtually no difference was evident between the results from the two methods of pattern stimulation. Of only slightly less sensitivity was the latency of the major positive peak with diffuse-light stimulation, and this showed a prolonged latency in a greater number of patients when visual acuity was poor. Abnormalities of latency of the first negative peak and of amplitude were seen less often. These results were not related to the clinical expression of the multiple sclerosis, whether relapsing, progressive, or relapsing and progressive.
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Medical Center, Denver (Drs Wilson and Keyser), and the Division of Ophthalmology, Denver General Hospital, Denver (Dr Wilson).
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Dec 27, 1978.
Reprint requests to Division of Ophthalmology, Denver General Hospital, W 8th Ave and Cherokee St, Denver, CO 80204.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Visual Evoked Potential and Pupillary Signs: A Comparison in Optic Nerve Disease
Cox et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:1603-1607.
ABSTRACT
|
