Multimodal evoked potentials for functional quantification and prognosis in multiple sclerosis

BMC Neurology

Table 4 Cross-sectional (T0, T1) and longitudinal (T0→T1) correlations (Spearman correlation) between electrophysiological and clinical data

	T0	T1		T0→T1	T0→T1 (≤6,3 y)	T0→T1 (>6,3 y)
	(n=100)	(n=76)		(n=76)	(n=38)	(n=38)
EDSS vs UL MEP	0.47 ***	0.49 ***	∆ EDSS vs ∆ UL MEP	0.20	0.08	0.31
EDSS vs LL MEP	0.62 ***	0.60 ***	∆ EDSS vs ∆ LL MEP	0.16	−0.13	0.44 **
EDSS vs LL SEP	0.61 ***	0.54 ***	∆ EDSS vs ∆ LL SEP	0.11	0.05	0.19
EDSS vs VEP	0.33 ***	0.34 **	∆ EDSS vs ∆ VEP	0.10	0.17	0.05
EDSS vs Global EP	0.67 ***	0.66 ***	∆ EDSS vs ∆ Global EP	0.18	0.07	0.28
pSF vs UL MEP	0.52 ***	0.56 ***	∆ pSF vs ∆ UL MEP	0.24 *	0.16	0.34 *
pSF vs LL MEP	0.56 ***	0.58 ***	∆ pSF vs ∆ LL MEP	0.16	−0.05	0.38 *
sSF vs LL SEP	0.53 ***	0.50 ***	∆ sSF vs ∆ LL SEP	0.18	0.12	0.25
vSF vs VEP	0.38 ***	0.40 ***	∆ vSF vs ∆ VEP	0.17	0.36 *	0.01

* p ≤ 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001; 6.3 y = median follow-up in years in considered patients; EP evoked potentials, UL upper limb, LL lower limb, MEP motor evoked potentials, SEP somatosensory evoked potentials, VEP visual evoked potentials, EDSS expanded disability status scale, mFS pyramidal functional system, sFS somatosensory functional system; visual functional system; ∆, delta EDSS

ISSN: 1471-2377