SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Meta-Analysis of Visual Evoked Potential and Parkinson's Disease.

Parkinsons Dis · 2018-07-11

DOI: 10.1155/2018/3201308PMID: 30123489

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundPrevious studies suggested that visual evoked potential (VEP) was impaired in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), but the results were inconsistent.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore whether the VEP was significantly different between PD patients and healthy controls. Case-control studies of PD were selected through an electronic search of the databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We calculated the pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between individuals with PD and controls using the random-effects model.ResultsTwenty case-control studies which met our inclusion criteria were included in the final meta-analysis. We found that the P100 latency in PD was significantly higher compared with healthy controls (pooled WMD = 6.04, 95% CI: 2.73 to 9.35, P=0.0003, n=20). However, the difference in the mean amplitude of P100 was not significant between the two groups (pooled WMD = 0.64, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.33, P=0.07) based on 10 studies with the P100 amplitude values available.ConclusionsThe higher P100 latency of VEP was observed in PD patients, relative to healthy controls. Our findings suggest that electrophysiological changes and functional defect in the visual pathway of PD patients are important to our understanding of the pathophysiology of visual involvement in PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.