VEP and PERG in patients with multiple sclerosis, with and without a history of optic neuritis
Abstract
Purpose Visual electrophysiology is routinely used to detect the visual complications of multiple sclerosis, but the analysis mostly focuses on visual evoked potential (VEP) and especially the P100 component. Our goal was to analyze the components and waveform alterations of VEPs and pattern electroretinograms (PERGs) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) with good vision. Methods The main VEP and PERG components of 85 patients with MS were analyzed in two groups: 38 patients who had optic neuritis in their history (ON group) and 47 patients who had never had optic neuritis (MS group). The results were compared against a control group of 47 healthy subjects. Results Both VEP and PERG alterations occurred in a greater number of patients than expected, and these alterations were not necessarily linked to ON in the history or a deterioration of visual acuity. Conclusions Both VEP and PERG can detect dysfunction in the visual system in MS, even if the patient has no subjective symptoms. Even if PERG is not routinely used in neuro-ophthalmology, the results suggest that PERG assessment may provide useful information describing the retinal defect in MS.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several factors, including stimulus parameters, method of recording, and approaches for waveform analysis, influence VEPs, not only recorded latencies but also sensitivity to optic nerve lesions.
“Several factors, including the stimulus parameters used, method of recording, and approaches for waveform analysis, influence VEPs, not only the recorded latencies, but also the sensitivity to optic nerve lesions.”
From The use of optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (2025) · cites this paper as [95]
Following well-established guidelines such as the ISCEV and IFCN standards likely improves VEP reliability and comparability across clinical laboratories.
“We recommend following well-established guidelines to ensure the use of appropriate parameters for performing VEPs in the clinic, such as the widely used standards from the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, which have likely contributed to improve VEP reliability and comparability across clinical laborator”
From The use of optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (2025) · cites this paper as [95]
Reliability and reproducibility of VEP recordings can be influenced by electrical noise, choice and placement of electrodes, impedance, and number of averages obtained per recording session.
“In addition, reliability and reproducibility of recordings can be influenced by electrical noise, the choice and placement of electrodes, impedance, and the number of averages obtained per recording session, among other factors. 95,96”
From The use of optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (2025) · cites this paper as [95]
Cites
‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain
Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1994) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/0959-4388(94)90066-3 · Cited by 1,913 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Saidha, S., Green, A. J., Leocani, L., Vidal-Jordana, A., Kenney, R. C., Bsteh, G., Outteryck, O., Thompson, A., Montalban, X., Coetzee, T., et al. (2025) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(25)00275-3 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Oertel, F. C., Krämer, J., Motamedi, S., Keihani, A., Zimmermann, H. G., Dimitriou, N. G., Condor-Montes, S., Bereuter, C., Cordano, C., Abdelhak, A., et al. (2023) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000200092 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
- Authors
- Janáky, M., Jánossy, Á., Horváth, G., Benedek, G., & Braunitzer, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Szeged (HU)
- National Institute of Menthal Health, Neurology and Neurosurgery - Nyírő Gyula Hospital (HU)
- Corresponding author
- Braunitzer, G.
- Venue
- Documenta Ophthalmologica
- Published
- 2017-04-18
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 185-193
- ISSN
- 0012-4486 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2622
- OpenAlex
- W2607066712
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 1.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Documenta Ophthalmologica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SZTE Publicatio Repozitórium (University of Szeged) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
- Keywords
- multiple sclerosis, visual evoked potentials, pattern electroretinogram, optic neuritis, P100 component, retinal dysfunction, visual electrophysiology, neuro-ophthalmology
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Electroretinography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Optic Neuritis, Visual Acuity, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
