Cargando…
Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma
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 pati...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5440894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28532392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0472-9 |
_version_ | 1783238151573078016 |
---|---|
author | Chen, XiangWu Zhao, YingXi |
author_facet | Chen, XiangWu Zhao, YingXi |
author_sort | Chen, XiangWu |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5440894 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54408942017-05-24 Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma Chen, XiangWu Zhao, YingXi BMC Ophthalmol Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2017-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5440894/ /pubmed/28532392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0472-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chen, XiangWu Zhao, YingXi Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
title | Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
title_full | Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
title_short | Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
title_sort | diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5440894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28532392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0472-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenxiangwu diagnosticperformanceofisolatedcheckvisualevokedpotentialversusretinalganglioncellinnerplexiformlayeranalysisinearlyprimaryopenangleglaucoma AT zhaoyingxi diagnosticperformanceofisolatedcheckvisualevokedpotentialversusretinalganglioncellinnerplexiformlayeranalysisinearlyprimaryopenangleglaucoma |