Xiang-Wu Chen1, Ying-Xi Zhao1. 1. Department of Outpatient Service, the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325000, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential (icVEP) and standard automated perimetry (SAP), for evaluating the application values of icVEP in the detection of early glaucoma. METHODS: Totally 144 subjects (288 eyes) were enrolled in this study. icVEP testing was performed with the Neucodia visual electrophysiological diagnostic system. A 15% positive-contrast (bright) condition pattern was used in this device to differentiate between glaucoma patients and healthy control subjects. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were derived based on a multivariate statistic. The eyes were judged as abnormal if the test yielded an SNR≤1. SAP testing was performed with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II. The visual fields were deemed as abnormality if the glaucoma hemifield test results outside normal limits; or the pattern standard deviation with P<0.05; or the cluster of three or more non-edge points on the pattern deviation plot in a single hemifield with P<0.05, one of which must have a P<0.01. Disc photographs were graded as either glaucomatous optic neuropathy or normal by two experts who were masked to all other patient information. Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) used as a separate diagnostic classification was performed by Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT). RESULTS: When the disc photograph grader was used as diagnostic standard, the sensitivity for SAP and icVEP was 32.3% and 38.5% respectively and specificity was 82.3% and 77.8% respectively. When the MRA Classifier was used as the diagnostic standard, the sensitivity for SAP and icVEP was 48.6% and 51.4% respectively and specificity was 84.1% and 78.0% respectively. When the combined structural assessment was used as the diagnostic standard, the sensitivity for SAP and icVEP was 59.2% and 53.1% respectively and specificity was 84.2% and 84.6% respectivlely. There was no statistical significance between the sensitivity or specificity of SAP and icVEP, regardless of which diagnostic standard was based on. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of icVEP is not better than that of SAP in the detection of early glaucoma.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential (icVEP) and standard automated perimetry (SAP), for evaluating the application values of icVEP in the detection of early glaucoma. METHODS: Totally 144 subjects (288 eyes) were enrolled in this study. icVEP testing was performed with the Neucodia visual electrophysiological diagnostic system. A 15% positive-contrast (bright) condition pattern was used in this device to differentiate between glaucomapatients and healthy control subjects. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were derived based on a multivariate statistic. The eyes were judged as abnormal if the test yielded an SNR≤1. SAP testing was performed with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II. The visual fields were deemed as abnormality if the glaucoma hemifield test results outside normal limits; or the pattern standard deviation with P<0.05; or the cluster of three or more non-edge points on the pattern deviation plot in a single hemifield with P<0.05, one of which must have a P<0.01. Disc photographs were graded as either glaucomatous optic neuropathy or normal by two experts who were masked to all other patient information. Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) used as a separate diagnostic classification was performed by Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT). RESULTS: When the disc photograph grader was used as diagnostic standard, the sensitivity for SAP and icVEP was 32.3% and 38.5% respectively and specificity was 82.3% and 77.8% respectively. When the MRA Classifier was used as the diagnostic standard, the sensitivity for SAP and icVEP was 48.6% and 51.4% respectively and specificity was 84.1% and 78.0% respectively. When the combined structural assessment was used as the diagnostic standard, the sensitivity for SAP and icVEP was 59.2% and 53.1% respectively and specificity was 84.2% and 84.6% respectivlely. There was no statistical significance between the sensitivity or specificity of SAP and icVEP, regardless of which diagnostic standard was based on. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of icVEP is not better than that of SAP in the detection of early glaucoma.
Entities:
Keywords:
early glaucoma; isolated-check visual evoked potential; signal-to-noise ratios; standard automated perimetry
Authors: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Shaban Demirel; Stuart K Gardiner; Jeffrey M Liebmann; George A Cioffi; Robert Ritch; Mae O Gordon; Michael A Kass Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ileana Soto; Mary E Pease; Janice L Son; Xiaohai Shi; Harry A Quigley; Nicholas Marsh-Armstrong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Bryce A Ford; Paul H Artes; Terry A McCormick; Marcelo T Nicolela; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Eve J Higginbotham; Mae O Gordon; Julia A Beiser; Michael V Drake; G Richard Bennett; M Roy Wilson; Michael A Kass Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-06
Authors: Anthony M Norcia; Alexandra Yakovleva; Naz Jehangir; Jeffrey L Goldberg Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 4.925
Authors: Gala Beykin; Anthony M Norcia; Vivek J Srinivasan; Alfredo Dubra; Jeffrey L Goldberg Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 21.198