Do visual evoked potentials give relevant information to the neuro-ophthalmological examination in XXXX ?

@entity1 @entity227 @entity7995 @entity1781 @entity2300 @entity3641 @entity15
The visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and neuro-ophthalmological examinations of 134 @entity1 were compared. The VEPs were abnormal in 95% of the eyes with @entity7995 . @entity3641 was found in 99%, @entity227 in 88%, @entity227 in 66% and an afferent @entity2300 in 55%. 29 @entity1 with @entity7995 were followed up with repeated tests. VEPs and color vision recovered more slowly than visual acuity and visual field. Abnormal VEPs were observed in 68% of 50 @entity15 @entity1 . An analysis of symptomatic and asymptomatic eyes showed that testing of color vision, visual field and red-free ophthalmoscopy were equally as useful diagnostic tools as VEPs. 4 (8%) of the @entity15 @entity1 had abnormal VEPs despite a normal neuro-ophthalmological examination; 94% of @entity15 @entity1 with symptoms and 47% of @entity15 @entity1 without visual symptoms had abnormal VEPs. VEPs were pathological in 59% of 24 @entity1 with traumatic or compressive @entity1781 or optic atrophies of unknown etiology. The neuro-ophthalmological examination was more sensitive than VEPs in the diagnosis of these disorders. A neuro-ophthalmological examination is in most cases sufficient to diagnose @entity1781 . VEPs are of diagnostic aid especially in mild @entity1781 .
