Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T11:38:56.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Visual, Brainstem Auditory, and Somatosensory Evoked Potentials in Multiple Sclerosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

S.J. Purves ,
M.D. Low ,
J. Galloway  and
B. Reeves
S.J. Purves*
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine. Division of Neurology. University of British Columbia, and Diagnostic Neurophysiology., Vancouver General Hospital
M.D. Low
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine. Division of Neurology. University of British Columbia, and Diagnostic Neurophysiology., Vancouver General Hospital
J. Galloway
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine. Division of Neurology. University of British Columbia, and Diagnostic Neurophysiology., Vancouver General Hospital
B. Reeves
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine. Division of Neurology. University of British Columbia, and Diagnostic Neurophysiology., Vancouver General Hospital
*
Vancouver General Hospital, 855 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Multimodality evoked potentials testing including PVEPs, SEPsand BAEPs was done in 112 patients who were known or suspected to have multiple sclerosis. The incidence of abnormal evoked potential findings in each of these systems was considered in patients in the different diagnostic categories of M.S. Results were also evaluated with respect to the presence of abnormal clinical visual, somatosensory, or brainstem signs. The PVEP was found to be the most frequently abnormal even in patients without clinical involvement in the visual system (45% of patients with definite, probable, or possible M.S.), the SEP was less frequently abnormal in the absence of clinical signs (35% in patients with M.S.), and the BA EP showed the lowest frequency of abnormalities in patients without brainstem signs (14% in patients with M.S.). Combining the three types of evoked potentials significantly increased the percentage of M. S. patients having abnormal findings, compared to any of these tests alone, with 97% of “definite” M.S. patients, 86% of “probable” M.S. patients and 63% of “possible” M. S. patients having at least one of these EP tests abnormal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1981 , pp. 15 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1981

References

Asselman, P., Chadwick, D.W., and Marsden, C.D. (1975) Visual evoked responses in the diagnosis and management of patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 98: 261–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bynke, H., Olsson, I.E., and Rosen, I. (1977) Diagnostic value of visual evoked response, clinical eye examination and CSF analysis in chronic myelopathy. Acta. Neurol. Scand. 56: 55–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiappa, K.H. and Norwood, A.E.(1977) A comparison of the clinical utility of pattern-shift visual evoked responses and brainstem auditory evoked responses in multiple sclerosis. Neurology (Minneap), 27: 397.Google Scholar
Chiappa, K.H., Gladstone, K.J., and Young, R.R. (1979) Brainstem auditory evoked responses: studies of waveform variations in 50 normal human subjects. Arch. Neurol., 36: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiappa, K.H. (1980) Pattern shift visual, brainstem auditory and shortlatency somatosensory evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis. Neurology, 30: 110–123.Google ScholarPubMed
Chiappa, K.H., Choi, S., and Young, R.R. (1980) Short latency somatosensory evoked potentials following median nerve stimulation in patients with neurological lesions. In: Desmedt, J.E. (Ed) Clinical Uses of Cerebral, Brainstem and Spinal Somatosensory Evoked Potentials. Prog. clin. Neurophysiol., 7: 264–281.Google Scholar
Chiappa, K.H., Harrison, J.L., Brooks, E.B., and Young, R.R. (1980) Brainstem auditory evoked responses in 200 patients with multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol., 7: 135–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, D.W.K., Black, J.L. and Mastaglia, F.L. (1978) Pattern-reversal visual potential: method of analysis and results in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Sci., 36: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisen, A. and Nudleman, K. (1978) F wave and cervical somatosensory response conduction from the seventh cervical spinous process to cortex in multiple sclerosis. Can. J. Neurol. Sci., 5: 289–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisen, A., Stewart, J., Nudleman, K., and Cosgrove, J.B.R. (1979) Shortlatency somatosensory responses in multiple sclerosis. Neurology, 29: 827–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisen, A., and Odusote, K. (1980) Central and Peripheral conduction times in multiple sclerosis. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 48: 253–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, A.M., McDonald, W.I., and Mushin, J. (1973) Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. B.M.J., 4: 661–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, A.M., McDonald, W.I., and Mushin, J. (1972) Delayed pattern-evoked responses in optic neuritis in relation to visual acuity. Trans. Ophthalmol. Soc, UK, 93: 315–324.Google Scholar
Hennerici, M., Wenzel, D., and Freund, H.J. (1977) The comparison of small-size rectangle and checkerboard stimulation for the evaluation of delayed visual evoked responses in patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. Brain, 100: 119–136.Google ScholarPubMed
McAlpine, D., Lumsden, C.E., Acheson, E.D., (1972) Multiple Sclerosis: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, Ltd.Google Scholar
McDonald, W.I. and Halliday, A.M. (1977) Diagnosis and classification of multiple sclerosis B. Med. Bull. 33: 4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastaglia, F.L., Black, J.L., and Collins, D.W.K. (1976) Visual and spinal evoked potentials in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, B.M.J., 2: 732.Google ScholarPubMed
Matthews, W.B. and Esiri, M. (1970) Multiple sclerosis plaque related to abnormal somatosensory evoked potentials. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 42: 940–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, B.A., Regan, D., and Heron, J.R. (1974) Differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis by visual evoked potential recording. Brain, 97: 755–772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purves, S.J. and Low, M.D. (1978) The pattern VEP in the early stages of the diagnosis of M.S.: A prospective study. Can. J. Neurol. Sci., 5: 350.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. and Rudge, R. (1975) Auditory evoked responses in multiple sclerosis. Lancet (i), 1164–1166.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. and Rudge, P. (1977) Abnormalities of the auditory evoked potentials in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain, 100: 19–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, M.J. (1978) Normal variability of the brainstem auditory evoked response in young and old adult subjects. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 44: 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahrokhi, F., Chiappa, K.H., and Young, R.R. (1978) Pattern shift visual evoked responses. Two hundred patients with optic neuritis and/or multiple sclerosis. Arch. Neurol., 35: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Small, D.G., Matthews, W.B., and Small, M. (1978) The cervical somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Sci., 35: 211–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockard, J.J. and Rossiter, V.S. (1977) Clinical and pathologic correlates of brainstem auditory response abnormalities. Neurology, 27: 316–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trojaborg, W. and Petersen, E. (1979) Visual and somatosensory evoked cortical potentials in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 42: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeese, J.A. (1977) Pattern visual evoked responses in multiple sclerosis. Arch. Neurol., 34: 314–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed