To the Editor.
—Ramani et al1 raised interesting questions in their article comparing critical frequency of photic driving (CFPD) with pattern visual evoked response (PVER) in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). The authors reviewed the initial article by Celesia and Daly2 and our initial study3 and found "disagreement about the relative sensitivities" of PVER and CFPD testing.In reevaluating this technique, Ramani et al1 reliably replicated our methods for testing CFPD, with only "minor differences." They state that their results and conclusions did not replicate those of our laboratory or those of Celesia and Daly.2There are several possible reasons for this that are not adequately discussed in their article.First, they report that we found CFPD to be "somewhat more sensitive than PVER." In fact, in our initial report on 27 patients, we found CFPD to be "slightly more sensitive" and we emphasized
Cohen SN, Syndulko K, Tourtellotte WW. Critical Frequency of Photic Driving in the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 1986;43(4):315. doi:10.1001/archneur.1986.00520040005007
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: