Giant pattern VEPs in children

Thompson, Dorothy; Marmoy, Oliver R.; Prise, Katrina; Reynolds, Victoria M.; Handley, Siân E.; Versace, Dominique M.; Kafiabadi, Sina; Mankad, Kshitij; Panteli, Vasiliki; Schwiebert, Kemmy; James, Greg; Bowman, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.ejpn.2021.07.008

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to prior VEP studies, pattern reversal VEPs or sustained giant pattern VEPs were not found to be reliable indicators of elevated ICP [135]. Pattern reversal VEPs were shown to have a sensitivity for elevated ICP that ranged between 58.3 and 70.6% [133] and sustained giant pattern VEPs incorrectly suggested elevated ICP in at least 20% of pediatric patients [135]. Therefore, it is unlikely that changes in VEP can be used to reliably detect changes in ICP and even less likely that it can provide a quantitative measurement of ICP.…”

Section: Methods Based On Changes In Ocular Structuressupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Methods Based On Changes In Ocular Structuresmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…More recent studies have looked at pattern reversal VEPs in patients with craniosynostosis and at sustained giant pattern VEPs (VEP amplitudes that exceeded the upper 97th percentile of VEP amplitudes) as markers of elevated ICP [133,135]. Similar to prior VEP studies, pattern reversal VEPs or sustained giant pattern VEPs were not found to be reliable indicators of elevated ICP [135]. Pattern reversal VEPs were shown to have a sensitivity for elevated ICP that ranged between 58.3 and 70.6% [133] and sustained giant pattern VEPs incorrectly suggested elevated ICP in at least 20% of pediatric patients [135].…”

Section: Visual Evoked Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Noninvasive methods to monitor intracranial pressure

Dattilo

2022

Current Opinion in Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of reviewIntracranial pressure (ICP) is determined by the production of and outflow facility of cerebrospinal fluid. Since alterations in ICP are implicated in several vision-threatening and life-threatening diseases, measurement of ICP is necessary and common. All current clinical methods to measure ICP are invasive and carry the risk for significant side effects. Therefore, the development of accurate, reliable, objective, and portal noninvasive devices to measure ICP has the potential to change the practice of medicine. This review discusses recent advances and barriers to the clinical implementation of noninvasive devices to determine ICP. Recent findingsMany noninvasive methods to determine ICP have been developed. Although most have significant limitations limiting their clinical utility, several noninvasive methods have shown strong correlations with invasively obtained ICP and have excellent potential to be developed further to accurately quantify ICP and ICP changes.

show abstract

Section: Methods Based On Changes In Ocular Structuressupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Methods Based On Changes In Ocular Structuresmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Visual Evoked Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noninvasive methods to monitor intracranial pressure

Dattilo

2022

Current Opinion in Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Visual Evoked Potential

Marmoy

2024

Ophthalmic Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ISCEV standard pattern reversal VEP development: paediatric reference limits from 649 healthy subjects

Thompson,

Mikó-Baráth,

Hardy

et al. 2023

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To establish the extent of agreement for ISCEV standard reference pattern reversal VEPs (prVEPs) acquired at three European centres, to determine any effect of sex, and to establish reference intervals from birth to adolescence. Methods PrVEPs were recorded from healthy reference infants and children, aged 2 weeks to 16 years, from three centres using closely matched but non-identical protocols. Amplitudes and peak times were modelled with orthogonal quadratic and sigmoidal curves, respectively, and two-sided limits, 2.5th and 97.5th centiles, estimated using nonlinear quantile Bayesian regression. Data were compared by centre and by sex using median quantile confidence intervals. The ‘critical age’, i.e. age at which P100 peak time ceased to shorten, was calculated. Results Data from the three centres were adequately comparable. Sex differences were not clinically meaningful. The pooled data showed rapid drops in P100 peak time which stabilised by 27 and by 34 weeks for large and small check widths, respectively. Post-critical-age reference limits were 87–115 ms and 96–131 ms for large and small check widths, respectively. Amplitudes varied markedly and reference limits for all ages were 5–57 μV and 3.5–56 μV for large and small check widths, respectively. Conclusions PrVEP reference data could be combined despite some methodology differences within the tolerances of the ISCEV VEP Standard, supporting the clinical benefit of ISCEV Standards. Comparison with historical data is hampered by lack of minimum reporting guidelines. The reference data presented here could be validated or transformed for use elsewhere.

show abstract

Giant pattern VEPs in children

Cited by 4 publications

References 44 publications

Noninvasive methods to monitor intracranial pressure

Noninvasive methods to monitor intracranial pressure

The Visual Evoked Potential

ISCEV standard pattern reversal VEP development: paediatric reference limits from 649 healthy subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About