Skip to main content
. 2010 Oct-Dec;5(4):222–227. doi: 10.4103/1817-1737.69111

Box 3.

Comparison between previous studies and our study

Study No. of study subjects COPD patients characteristics VEP parameters studied Percentage of patients with VEP abnormalities VEP parameters affected Correlations
Kayacan et al.[7] 32 COPD subjects (male=30); no controls (Flash VEP was used) 19/32 had PaO2 < 55mmHg Age=61±8.8 years; smoking packyears= 37.4±28.5

  • N2 latencies

 None None None
Özge et al.[8] 28 COPD Patients (male = 26) Controls = 20 (Pattern shift VEP was used) Severe COPD; Age = 59.4±9.4 years; Only 15/21 smokers, pack-years = 30.8±15.5; FEV1 = 1.4+0.5 L

  • Latencies N75, P100, N145

  • Amplitude P100

 82.1

  • Latencies N75, P100, N145

  • Amplitude P100

 VEP abnormalities ** pH, PaO2, PaCO2, FEV1%, FVC
Our study COPD patients = 40, all male (None had clinical neurologic deficiency) Healthy volunteers = 40, all male (Pattern shift VEP was used) Stable COPD patients, Age = 57.25±9.07 All smokers/exsmokers Smoking pack-years = 39.95±20.94 FEV1 = 1.48±0.50 L

  • Latency P100

  • Amplitude P100

 57.5

  • Latency P100

  • Amplitude P100

 Latency P100 on right side** FEV1/FVC%, and MMSE score.

Significant correlations between variables are shown by (**)