Letters

Authors' reply to Camelford letters

BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1536 (Published 03 June 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:1536
  1. Paul Altmann, consultant nephrologist,
  2. John Cunningham, consultant nephrologist and physician,
  3. Frank Marsh, consultant nephrologist and physician,
  4. Usha Dhanesha, principal optometrist,
  5. Margaret Ballard, consultant clinical psychologist,
  6. James Thompson, senior lecturer in psychology
  1. Oxford Kidney Unit, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 7LJ
  2. The Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB
  3. Paybody Eye Unit, Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, Coventry CV1 4FH
  4. Priory Hospital, London SW15 5JJ
  5. University College London Medical School, London W1N 8AA

    EDITOR—Many of the comments of David, Esmonde, McMillan, and Murray et al are incorrect and overlap.1 Owing to space constraints we have addressed points of fact below and opinion based comments in bmj.com (bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7245/1337#EL1) or in the printed 2 and longer web versions of our paper (bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/807/DC1).

    Few normative data are published on large series of flash or pattern stimulated visual evoked potentials or the difference in timing between them. In a given subject the flash-pattern difference might be large because of a quicker (shorter) pattern latency than normal, but, to our knowledge, pathologically short pattern evoked responses have not been reported in …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Subscribe