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

Marc R. Nuwer, MD, PhD; George W. Ellison, MD; Lawrence W. Myers, MD
Department of Neurology UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90024

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(1):11-12.

	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.

—We wish to disagree with the negative conclusions reached by Anderson et al¹ in their report on the usefulness of evoked potentials (EPs) to test a treatment of chronic multiple sclerosis (MS). We think that they have erred in their methodology and interpretation.

Some tests may have been carried out in ways that differ with usual recommendations,² in ways that can reduce EP quality: eg, the visual repetition rate was faster (3/s) and sometimes the auditory stimulus intensity may have been too soft (60 dB). The latter intensity was specified ambiguously. Common clinical experience with EPs should have forewarned these investigators about the difficulty and ambiguity in finding N14 or N20 in MS; a much better strategy would have been to study middlelatency somatosensory EPs where the peaks are unambiguous and reproducible in almost all MS patients. Several important technical parameters were unspecified: the filter . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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