ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Normative values of visual evoked potential in adults.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- VEP Abnormalities in Treatment-Naïve CIS/Early RRMS Without Prior Optic Neuritis: Clinical, Radiological, and CSF Associations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Physiological determinants of cortical P100 responses in pattern visual evoked potentials: a scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Sex-independent visual evoked potential complexity.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Analysis of P100 Wave Amplitude and Latency in Multiple Sclerosis: A 19-Year Retrospective VEP Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- SSFVEP as a potential electrophysiological examination for evaluating visual function of fundus diseases with vitreous hemorrhages: a clinical study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Analysis of visual evoked potentials in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1: new concepts.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Agreement Between Sweep Visual Evoked Potential Testing and Subjective Visual Acuity.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Analysis of the Clinical Effect of Visual Electrophysiological Examination Combined with Targeted Health Education Nursing in Children.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
- Fullfield and extrafoveal visual evoked potentials in healthy eyes: reference data for a curved OLED display.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Normative values of visual evoked potential in adults.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Commentary: Visual electrophysiology and laboratory-specific normative values - How important are they?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVisual evoked potentials (VEP) are used to determine the function of visual pathway from the optic nerve to visual cortex. Various factors may affect VEP response, viz., technical and environmental. The aim of this study is to obtain the normative value of VEP latency and amplitude parameters in adulthood in Indonesia, as well as the relationship of height, weight, body mass index (BMI), head circumference, and visual acuity with the variety of latency and amplitude values of VEP parameters.
methodsIt is a cross-sectional study on 120 healthy subjects consisting of 60 males and 60 females between 18 and 65 years old. Height, weight, BMI, head circumference, and visual acuity were measured and continued with VEP examination using a 26' checkerboard pattern on the left and right eyes alternately. All data were collected and analyzed with the Shapiro-Wilk test using statistical software R version 3.5.2.
resultsMean value of P100 latency (interocular latency) of left and right eye were 104.6 ± 3.4 ms and 104.1 ± 3.4 ms, respectively, as well as 9.8 ± 4.7 μV and 10.3 ± 5.4 μV for the amplitude. There was no significant difference between the male and female group, as well as on the age group. Female significantly exhibited a higher P100 amplitude than male. The greater the age, the lower amplitude of P100 significantly.
conclusionGender and age do not affect the P100 latency value but only affect P100 amplitude. Height, weight, BMI, head circumference, and visual acuity also do not affect the P100 latency and amplitude.
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.