Literature DB >> 15505053

Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma.

Anne Bjerre1, John R Grigg, Neil R A Parry, David B Henson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) and threshold perimetry in glaucoma, and to examine the relationship between the two techniques.
METHODS: Data were recorded using the AccuMap mfVEP and SITA standard program of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Data were obtained twice within a 4-week period from both eyes of 74 patients with varying amounts of glaucomatous visual field loss. The number of defective test locations (those falling beyond a given probability value of being normal) were calculated for mfVEP and SITA, using databases incorporated within the instruments software. Reliability measures and test times were recorded along with patient test preference.
RESULTS: Both tests showed a large degree of test-retest variability in the number of defective test locations (95% limits of agreement for mfVEP and SITA being 13.39 and 9.88, respectively). A "fair to moderate" degree of spatial agreement was found between mfVEP and SITA. The number of mfVEP defective locations was dependent on the signal amplitude. No relationship was found between test-retest variability and the reliability indices for either test. The mean time taken to perform mfVEP and SITA standard was 33 and 20 minutes, respectively, and 73 of the 74 patients preferred the mfVEP test.
CONCLUSIONS: Test-retest variability was found to be slightly greater for mfVEP. The processing of mfVEP signals needs to be changed to remove the relationship between the number of defective locations and signal amplitude. The majority of patients preferred mfVEP to conventional perimetry although mfVEP takes longer to perform.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15505053     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  16 in total

1.  Effect of recording duration on the diagnostic performance of multifocal visual-evoked potentials in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.

Authors:  Brad Fortune; Xian Zhang; Donald C Hood; Shaban Demirel; Emily Patterson; Annisa Jamil; Steven L Mansberger; George A Cioffi; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2008 Apr-May       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage.

Authors:  Makoto Nakamura; Kumiko Ishikawa; Takayuki Nagai; Akira Negi
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Application of multifocal visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual dysfunction in macular diseases.

Authors:  L Jiang; H Zhang; J Xie; X Jiao; H Zhou; H Ji; T Y Y Lai; N Wang
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Reproducibility in the global indices for multifocal visual evoked potentials and Humphrey visual fields in controls and glaucomatous eyes within a 2-year period.

Authors:  Yukako Inoue; Kei Kato; Seiko Kamata; Kumiko Ishikawa; Makoto Nakamura
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential (mfVEP) and Pattern-Reversal Visual Evoked Potential Changes in Patients with Visual Pathway Disorders: A Case Series.

Authors:  Daniah Alshowaeir; Con Yiannikas; Alexander Klistorner
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2015-08-25

6.  Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  Michal Laron; Han Cheng; Bin Zhang; Jade S Schiffman; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 6.312

7.  A frequency-tagging electrophysiological method to identify central and peripheral visual field deficits.

Authors:  Noémie Hébert-Lalonde; Lionel Carmant; Dima Safi; Marie-Sylvie Roy; Maryse Lassonde; Dave Saint-Amour
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma.

Authors:  Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  Novel electrophysiological instrument for rapid and objective assessment of magnocellular deficits associated with glaucoma.

Authors:  Vance Zemon; James C Tsai; Max Forbes; Lama A Al-Aswad; Chi-Ming Chen; James Gordon; Vivienne C Greenstein; George Hu; Evy C Strugstad; Elona Dhrami-Gavazi; Lawrence F Jindra
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 2.379

10.  A method to detect progression of glaucoma using the multifocal visual evoked potential technique.

Authors:  Boonchai Wangsupadilok; Vivienne C Greenstein; Fabio N Kanadani; Tomas M Grippo; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 2.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.