This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stanley N. Cohen, MD; Karl Syndulko, PhD; Wallace W. Tourtellotte, MD, PhD
Neurology and Research Services Veterans Administration Wadsworth Medical Center and Department of Neurology Reed Neurological Research Center UCLA School of Medicine Los Angeles, CA 90073

Arch Neurol. 1986;43(4):315.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Ramani et al¹ raised interesting questions in their article comparing critical frequency of photic driving (CFPD) with pattern visual evoked response (PVER) in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). The authors reviewed the initial article by Celesia and Daly² and our initial study³ and found "disagreement about the relative sensitivities" of PVER and CFPD testing.

In reevaluating this technique, Ramani et al¹ reliably replicated our methods for testing CFPD, with only "minor differences." They state that their results and conclusions did not replicate those of our laboratory or those of Celesia and Daly.²

There are several possible reasons for this that are not adequately discussed in their article.

First, they report that we found CFPD to be "somewhat more sensitive than PVER." In fact, in our initial report on 27 patients, we found CFPD to be "slightly more sensitive" and we emphasized . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?