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

Song-Bin He,Bin-Da Wang,Wei-Guo Tang,Ya-Ping Zhang,Xiang Gao,Chun-Yan Liu,Zhi-Nan Ye,Lin-Di Chen

doi:10.1155/2018/3201308

Abstract

Background Previous studies suggested that visual evoked potential (VEP) was impaired in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), but the results were inconsistent. Methods We 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. Results Twenty 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. Conclusions The 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.

Highlights

Previous studies suggested that visual evoked potential (VEP) was impaired in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but the results were inconsistent
It is thought that abnormal latency is due to delayed conduction in visual pathways affected by the process of demyelination and/or plaque formation [2]. e P100 latency of VEP is usually used to determine the abnormalities of the visual pathway due to the relatively small individual difference
E funnel plot did not support existence of publication bias (Figure 3). In this meta-analysis based on 20 case-control studies, we observed that there is a signi cant delay in the VEP, as assessed by P100 latency, in individuals with PD, relative to controls

Summary

Introduction

Previous studies suggested that visual evoked potential (VEP) was impaired in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but the results were inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess whether the pattern reversal VEP latency, as the primary exposure, was different between PD patients and controls.

Results

Conclusion