Cargando…

Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments

Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harrison, Wendy W., Bearse, Marcus A., Ng, Jason S., Barez, Shirin, Schneck, Marilyn E., Adams, Anthony J.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700238/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19322597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z
_version_ 1782168586381426688
author Harrison, Wendy W.
Bearse, Marcus A.
Ng, Jason S.
Barez, Shirin
Schneck, Marilyn E.
Adams, Anthony J.
author_facet Harrison, Wendy W.
Bearse, Marcus A.
Ng, Jason S.
Barez, Shirin
Schneck, Marilyn E.
Adams, Anthony J.
author_sort Harrison, Wendy W.
collection PubMed
description Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 (n = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 (n = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z-scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z-scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z-score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z-scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z-scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z-scores based on normative data.
format Text
id pubmed-2700238
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27002382009-06-23 Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments Harrison, Wendy W. Bearse, Marcus A. Ng, Jason S. Barez, Shirin Schneck, Marilyn E. Adams, Anthony J. Doc Ophthalmol Original Research Article Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 (n = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 (n = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z-scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z-scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z-score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z-scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z-scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z-scores based on normative data. Springer-Verlag 2009-03-26 2009-08 /pmc/articles/PMC2700238/ /pubmed/19322597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z Text en © The Author(s) 2009
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Harrison, Wendy W.
Bearse, Marcus A.
Ng, Jason S.
Barez, Shirin
Schneck, Marilyn E.
Adams, Anthony J.
Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
title Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
title_full Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
title_fullStr Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
title_full_unstemmed Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
title_short Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
title_sort reproducibility of the mferg between instruments
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700238/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19322597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z
work_keys_str_mv AT harrisonwendyw reproducibilityofthemfergbetweeninstruments
AT bearsemarcusa reproducibilityofthemfergbetweeninstruments
AT ngjasons reproducibilityofthemfergbetweeninstruments
AT barezshirin reproducibilityofthemfergbetweeninstruments
AT schneckmarilyne reproducibilityofthemfergbetweeninstruments
AT adamsanthonyj reproducibilityofthemfergbetweeninstruments