Wilson W B, Keyser R B
Arch Neurol. 1980 Jan;37(1):30-4. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1980.00500500060008.
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 not related to the clinical expression of the multiple sclerosis, whether relapsing, progressive, or relapsing and progressive.
我们前瞻性地研究了100例“确诊”的多发性硬化症患者，以确定三种刺激方法中哪一种在与正常对照的结果相比较时，最能始终如一地显示出视觉诱发电位异常。这三种方法分别是漫射闪光、间歇性反转图案和持续发光但反转图案。视觉诱发电位异常的最敏感指标是枕叶主要正峰的潜伏期。两种图案刺激方法的结果之间几乎没有明显差异。漫射光刺激时主要正峰的潜伏期敏感性略低，当视力较差时，更多患者出现该潜伏期延长。第一个负峰潜伏期和波幅的异常与多发性硬化症的临床表型无关，无论其为复发型、进展型还是复发进展型。
