ArticleJournal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society2026
S2, S3, and S4 Sacral Dermatomal Evoked Potentials: Technical Parameters and Normative Values.
Article in Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of pelvic neurophysiology testing in clinical practice.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe existing literature on the sacral dermatomal evoked potentials (dSEPs) is limited. This study aims to develop stimulating parameters and establish normative values for S2, S3, and S4 sacral dermatomes in healthy adult populations.
methodsTwenty healthy adult volunteers were enrolled in the study. The study was ethically approved, and written consent for participation was provided. All participants underwent tibial, pudendal, S2, S3, and S4 dSEPs. Stimulating and recorded parameters were established for all evoked potentials. P40 latency, amplitude, and interpeak parameters were calculated for each waveform. A comparison was made between tibial, pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials, and all sacral dSEPs. Normative values were generated for sacral dSEPs based on various height, age, and Body Mass Index (BMI) parameters.
resultsThe sacral dSEPs were well tolerated and recorded in all participants. S2 latency was mildly influenced by age and height, while S3 and S4 latencies were unaffected by age or height. BMI does not affect the S2 and S3 latencies but mildly affects the S4 latency. Sacral dSEP latencies were comparable with pudendal SEPS but not with the tibial somatosensory evoked potential.
conclusionsThe S2, S3, and S4 sacral dSEPs can be used as diagnostic tools to evaluate sacral nerve lesions such as cauda equina syndrome and Tarlov cysts, complementary to pudendal and tibial somatosensory evoked potentials.
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.