Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May 22;17(1):77.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0472-9.

Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma

Affiliations

Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma

XiangWu Chen et al. BMC Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential (icVEP) with that of retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCILP) analysis using optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Methods: A total of 45 patients were enrolled: 25 patients with open-angle glaucoma and 20 healthy patients. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Moreover, the OCT examination was used to analyze the structures of the GCIPL. The icVEP technique was used to detect the transmission function of the magnocellular pathway, which is mainly managed by the retinal ganglion cells. The quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the diagnostic power of GCIPL analysis and that of icVEP were performed. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of GCIPL analysis and icVEP were compared using the Clarke-Pearson method. The sensitivity and specificity of the two techniques were analyzed and compared using the McNemar test.

Results: With the quantitative comparison, the AUC of icVEP (AUC = 0.892) was higher than that of GCIPL analysis (AUC = 0.814). However, there was no statistical significance between the AUCs of icVEP and GCIPL (P > 0.05). With the qualitative comparison, the sensitivity of icVEP was 80%, and its specificity was 90%. The sensitivity of GCIPL analysis was 72%, and its specificity was 85%. There was no significant difference between the sensitivitiesor specificities of icVEP and GCIPL analysis (P > 0.05). Moreover, 30 (66.67%) eyeshad similar resultsbetween icVEP and GCIPL analysis, and 15 (33.33%) eyes had different results (7 eyes had abnormal results with GCIPL analysisbut normal results with icVEP, and8 eyes had normal results with GCIPL analysisbut abnormal results with icVEP).

Conclusions: The diagnostic power of icVEP was close to that of GCIPL analysis whether the comparison was based on the qualitative or quantitative data.

Keywords: Glaucomatous optic neuropathy; Isolated-check visual evoked potential; Optical coherence tomography; Signal-to-noise ratios.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Eight separate fundamental frequency components of the icVEP under the 15% bright-check condition. a normal; b abnormal
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The procedure for the icVEP test
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Optical coherence tomography images of the left eye of a patient with early glaucoma. In this case, the GCIPL sectors in the temporal inferior area was outside of normal limits (red) and the inferior area was borderline (yellow). The minimum GCIPL was outside of normal limits (red), and the average GCIPL was borderline (yellow)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The ROC curves of icVEP and minimum GCIPL

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cherecheanu AP, Iancu R, Dascalu AM, Serban D, Pirvulescu R. Assessment of clinical and imagistic structural progression in glaucoma. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2015;59(3):129–132. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Nassiri N, Giangiacomo A, Caprioli J. Detection of visual field progression in glaucoma with standard achromatic perimetry: a review and practical implications. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(11):1593–1616. doi: 10.1007/s00417-011-1787-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moschos MM, Georgopoulos G, Chatziralli IP, Koutsandrea C. Multifocal VEP and OCT findings in patients with primary open angle glaucoma: a cross-sectional study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-12-34. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Larrosa JM, Moreno-Montañés J, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, et al. A diagnostic calculator for detecting glaucoma on the basis of retinal nerve fiber layer, optic disc, and retinal ganglion cell analysis by optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(11):6788–6795. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-17176. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grecescu M. Optical coherence tomography versus visual evoked potentials in detecting subclinical visual impairment in multiple sclerosis. J Med Life. 2014;7(4):538–541. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources