ArticleFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2023
Visual evoked potentials waveform analysis to measure intracortical damage in a preclinical model of multiple sclerosis.
Article in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07417046 (Possible Beneficial Effects Of Combined Fluoxetine And Occlusion Therapy In Improving And Maintaining Vision In Amblyopia Using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Possible Beneficial Effects Of Combined Fluoxetine And Occlusion Therapy In Improving And Maintaining Vision In Amblyopia Using Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) And Visual Evoked Potential (VEP)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) are a non-invasive technique routinely used in clinical and preclinical practice. Discussion about inclusion of VEPs in McDonald criteria, used for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) diagnosis, increased the importance of VEP in MS preclinical models. While the interpretation of the N1 peak is recognized, less is known about the first and second positive VEP peaks, P1 and P2, and the implicit time of the different segments. Our hypothesis is that P2 latency delay describes intracortical neurophysiological dysfunction from the visual cortex to the other cortical areas. Methods: In this work, we analyzed VEP traces that were included in our two recently published papers on Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis (EAE) mouse model. Compared with these previous publications other VEP peaks, P1 and P2, and the implicit time of components P1-N1, N1-P2 and P1-P2, were analyzed in blind. Results: Latencies of P2, P1-P2, P1-N1 and N1-P2 were increased in all EAE mice, including group without N1 latency change delay at early time points. In particular, at 7 dpi the P2 latency delay change was significantly higher compared with N1 latency change delay. Moreover, new analysis of these VEP components under the influence of neurostimulation revealed a decrease in P2 delay in stimulated animals. Discussion: P2 latency delay, P1-P2, P1-N1, and N1-P2 latency changes which reflect intracortical dysfunction, were consistently detected across all EAE groups before N1 change. Results underline the importance of analyzing all VEP components for a complete overview of the neurophysiological visual pathway dysfunction and treatment efficacy.
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.