Wonder if I can get some comment from any statisticians amongst you.
I had somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) tests on my limbs. The lab report mentions that the P 37 potential was measured at 44 ms for my right leg and 47 ms for the left, compared to the lab mean of 37. The ‘upper normal limit’ (3 standard deviations) given for this test is 44 ms. So I take from this that typically , something like 99 people out of every 100 would have a better result than for my right leg, and considerably more would better my left leg, which I would assume must be categorised as having an ‘abnormal’ result. The difference between each leg of ‘3 ms’ I suspect is also tending towards abnormal but I cant find a reference to check this.
What I fail to understand is the result being characterised by the neurologist as a ‘slight delay’ and ‘essentially normal’.
For my VEP test, the P100 for both my eyes were within ‘normal’ limits, but the inter-optic difference of ‘9’ (97 for the right eye, 107 for the left eye) is at the very upper limit of normal (I.e. 3 standard deviations away from the ‘mean’).
So with both the SSEP and the VEP, I would have thought there were grounds for entertaining at least the suspicion that something isn’t quite right.
In addition, I have had an MRI which found a lesion immediately behind one eye in the area of the optic nerve, and I have had a positive urodynamics test for detrusor instability, though my LP was reported as normal.
When my GP wrote to this neurologist recently because of further issues I am having with vision - seeing multiple images; he declined to see me, essentially on the basis that there wont be anything ‘organic’ wrong.
I just don’t see how he can logically conclude this from the data. I am thinking of making a complaint. Anyone think I have a point?