ArticleNeurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)2019
Visual evoked potentials follow-up in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Article in Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive assessment of intracranial pressure through the eyes: current developments, limitations, and future directions.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Neurophysiological visual assessment in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension: visual evoked potential and multifocal field electroretinography.BMC neurology · 2023Article
- Clinical electrophysiology of the optic nerve and retinal ganglion cells.Eye (London, England) · 2021Review
- An update on idiopathic intracranial hypertension in adults: a look at pathophysiology, diagnostic approach and management.Journal of neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo demonstrate the importance of visual evoked potential (VEP) in determining the severity and prognosis of the disease and in monitoring the clinical course in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).
methodsThis is a prospective cross-sectional study conducted covering the period between March 2014 and January 2015. The study included 32 patients recently diagnosed with IIH and 30 healthy volunteers. The initial VEP values of the IIH patients were compared to the VEP values of the healthy control group. Furthermore, the initial VEP values of the IIH patients were compared with their VEP values after one month of treatme
resultsThe mean age of the IIH patients was 37.8+/-12.02 years. Of the IIH patients, 27 (84%) were females and 5 (16%) were males. There was a statistically significant association of the initial VEP values with the visual field findings (p=0.011) and visual acuity (p=0.040). Moreover, a statistically significant difference was found between the control group and IIH patients in terms of right (p less than 0.001) and left P100 values (p less than 0.001). While 18 (56%) of the initial VEPs of IIH patients were pathological, 14 (44%) of the second VEPs were pathological, and this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.125).
conclusionA relationship between the VEP P100 values and the severity of the disease was detected, while the importance of monitoring VEP values in the follow-up of IIH patients was not demonstrated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.