PURPOSE: Survey the actual clinical practice of pediatric visual electrophysiology. The electrophysiologists surveyed were members of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV). METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire with 55 items about visual evoked potential (VEP) and electroretinogram (ERG) testing of pediatric patients was sent to ISCEV members. The survey queried personnel, facilities, referral patterns and conduct of tests. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (94%) had advanced scientific or clinical degrees or both, and most (96%) worked in academic or medical facilities. Of the 71 respondents, 68 tested patients 12 years or younger, and nearly all of those performed both VEPs and ERGs. However, fewer than a third did high volume (>10/month) testing of infants and young children (< or =6 years). Eye care professionals and neurologists made the majority (57%) of the referrals, with the most common reason for referral being suspected visual impairment. Conduct of a pediatric test session often required more than one practitioner. For both VEP and ERG, more than 70% of respondents required at least 30 min for each test. The majority indicated that they followed the ISCEV standards for stimuli and data acquisition. Almost all (94%) reported using the ISCEV recommended VEP electrode configuration. For ERG, most (88%) used ocular contact electrodes (including contact lens, thread, foil and HK loop), but 12% used skin electrodes exclusively and some (17%) used skin electrodes at times. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric ERG and VEP testing is a labor intensive endeavor of highly trained professionals. ISCEV technical standards are typically met or exceeded, indicating that high quality testing of infants and children is feasible. Revision of the ISCEV ERG standard is necessary to bring actual practice into accord with evidence-based recommendations for infant testing.
PURPOSE: Survey the actual clinical practice of pediatric visual electrophysiology. The electrophysiologists surveyed were members of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV). METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire with 55 items about visual evoked potential (VEP) and electroretinogram (ERG) testing of pediatric patients was sent to ISCEV members. The survey queried personnel, facilities, referral patterns and conduct of tests. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (94%) had advanced scientific or clinical degrees or both, and most (96%) worked in academic or medical facilities. Of the 71 respondents, 68 tested patients 12 years or younger, and nearly all of those performed both VEPs and ERGs. However, fewer than a third did high volume (>10/month) testing of infants and young children (< or =6 years). Eye care professionals and neurologists made the majority (57%) of the referrals, with the most common reason for referral being suspected visual impairment. Conduct of a pediatric test session often required more than one practitioner. For both VEP and ERG, more than 70% of respondents required at least 30 min for each test. The majority indicated that they followed the ISCEV standards for stimuli and data acquisition. Almost all (94%) reported using the ISCEV recommended VEP electrode configuration. For ERG, most (88%) used ocular contact electrodes (including contact lens, thread, foil and HK loop), but 12% used skin electrodes exclusively and some (17%) used skin electrodes at times. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric ERG and VEP testing is a labor intensive endeavor of highly trained professionals. ISCEV technical standards are typically met or exceeded, indicating that high quality testing of infants and children is feasible. Revision of the ISCEV ERG standard is necessary to bring actual practice into accord with evidence-based recommendations for infant testing.
Authors: Audrey C Ko; Jasmine Hernández; Jason P Brinton; Elizabeth A Faidley; Sarah A Mugge; Marilyn B Mets; Randy H Kardon; James C Folk; Robert F Mullins; Edwin M Stone Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-12