Jessica Tang1, Thomas Edwards2, Jonathan G Crowston3, Marc Sarossy4. 1. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia. 2. The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia ; The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia ; RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The photopic negative response (PhNR) may be useful as a tool to monitor longitudinal change in retinal ganglion cell (RGC) function. The goal was to assess PhNR test-retest reliability, and to estimate the amount of change between tests that is likely to be statistically significant for an individual test subject. METHODS: Photopic electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded from 49 visually normal subjects (mean age, 38.9 years; range, 21-72 years). Signals were acquired using Dawson-Trick-Litzkow (DTL) electrodes in response to red stimulus at four flash energies (0.5, 1, 2.25, 3 cd·s/m2) on a blue background (10 cd/m2). The PhNR amplitude was recorded from prestimulus baseline to trough (BT), prestimulus baseline to fixed time point (BF), and b-wave peak to trough (PT). The ratio of baseline PhNR to b-wave amplitude (BT/b-wave) was calculated. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and coefficient of repeatability (CoR). RESULTS: Flash energy of 1.00 cd·s/m2 produced reliable, well-defined traces. At this stimulus, the a- and b-wave amplitudes were reproduced with moderate reliability (ICC, 0.62; CoR%, 90.0%; and ICC, 0.74; CoR%, 54.3%; respectively). For PhNR, the order from most to least reliable measurement was: PT (ICC, 0.64; CoR%, 59.1%), BT (ICC, 0.40; CoR%, 148.3%), and BF (ICC, 0.22; CoR%, 166.1%). The BT/b-wave did not improve reliability (ICC, 0.37; CoR%, 181.5). CONCLUSION: The b-wave peak-to-PhNR trough amplitude produced the most reliable measurement. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: A relatively large magnitude of change in PhNR amplitude is required to make clinical inferences about changes in RGC function. Refinement to the technique of acquisition and/or processing of the PhNR is recommended to improve reliability.
PURPOSE: The photopic negative response (PhNR) may be useful as a tool to monitor longitudinal change in retinal ganglion cell (RGC) function. The goal was to assess PhNR test-retest reliability, and to estimate the amount of change between tests that is likely to be statistically significant for an individual test subject. METHODS: Photopic electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded from 49 visually normal subjects (mean age, 38.9 years; range, 21-72 years). Signals were acquired using Dawson-Trick-Litzkow (DTL) electrodes in response to red stimulus at four flash energies (0.5, 1, 2.25, 3 cd·s/m2) on a blue background (10 cd/m2). The PhNR amplitude was recorded from prestimulus baseline to trough (BT), prestimulus baseline to fixed time point (BF), and b-wave peak to trough (PT). The ratio of baseline PhNR to b-wave amplitude (BT/b-wave) was calculated. Reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and coefficient of repeatability (CoR). RESULTS: Flash energy of 1.00 cd·s/m2 produced reliable, well-defined traces. At this stimulus, the a- and b-wave amplitudes were reproduced with moderate reliability (ICC, 0.62; CoR%, 90.0%; and ICC, 0.74; CoR%, 54.3%; respectively). For PhNR, the order from most to least reliable measurement was: PT (ICC, 0.64; CoR%, 59.1%), BT (ICC, 0.40; CoR%, 148.3%), and BF (ICC, 0.22; CoR%, 166.1%). The BT/b-wave did not improve reliability (ICC, 0.37; CoR%, 181.5). CONCLUSION: The b-wave peak-to-PhNR trough amplitude produced the most reliable measurement. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: A relatively large magnitude of change in PhNR amplitude is required to make clinical inferences about changes in RGC function. Refinement to the technique of acquisition and/or processing of the PhNR is recommended to improve reliability.
Authors: Rachel V North; Adrian L Jones; Neville Drasdo; John M Wild; James E Morgan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jia Yue You; Allison L Dorfman; Mathieu Gauvin; Dylan Vatcher; Robert C Polomeno; John M Little; Pierre Lachapelle Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2022-10-23 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Zhichao Wu; Xavier Hadoux; Jennifer C Fan Gaskin; Marc G Sarossy; Jonathan G Crowston Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Zhichao Wu; Xavier Hadoux; Flora Hui; Marc G Sarossy; Jonathan G Crowston Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 3.283