Gundogan Fatih C, Sobaci Gungor, Bayer Atilla
Department of Ophthalmology, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey.
Ophthalmology. 2007 Dec;114(12):2332-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.04.026. Epub 2007 Jul 5.
To determine the value of pattern visual evoked potential (PVEP) testing with 5 consecutive check-size patterns in presumably malingering draftees.
Case-control study.
The study group included 111 military conscripts (124 eyes) whose visual abnormalities could not be explained by the findings of ophthalmologic, neurological, and psychiatric examinations. The control group was comprised of 111 age- and gender-matched healthy subjects without ocular problems, except with refraction.
The latency and amplitude of P100 for 5 consecutive patterns (2 degrees, 1 degrees, 30', 15', and 7') corresponding to visual acuities (VAs) of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0, respectively, were measured in both groups. Pattern VEP-estimated VA (PVEP-VA) was determined by the VA corresponding to the smallest check size, with normal interocular variance in unilateral cases and normative data for P100 latency and amplitude values in bilateral cases. The best-performed VA was determined with a battery of clinical tests for malingering (VA obtained after simulation examination techniques [VA(aset)]).
Comparison of PVEP-VA to VA(aset).
In pure malingerers, PVEP-VA was 1.0 (normal recordings in all patterns) for all eyes (20 eyes), and all subjects were proven to be malingerers (true positives). Of the exaggerators, 81 (77.8%) with an underlying ophthalmic disorder had a +/-1-Snellen line discrepancy between PVEP-VA and VA(aset). Pattern VEP-estimated VA was well correlated with VA(aset) (r = 0.670). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of PVEP in functional visual loss were found to be 97.2%, 62.5%, 94.5%, and 76.9%, respectively.
Pattern VEP testing with 5 consecutive check-size patterns may define VA objectively, especially in pure malingers; however, PVEP results should be evaluated in the context of the clinical examination, which remains the gold standard method to reveal the malingering.
确定对疑似诈病的应征入伍者采用5种连续视标大小的图形视觉诱发电位(PVEP)检测的价值。
病例对照研究。
研究组包括111名应征入伍者(124只眼),其视觉异常无法用眼科、神经科和精神科检查结果来解释。对照组由111名年龄和性别匹配的健康受试者组成,除屈光不正外无眼部问题。
在两组中测量与视力分别为0.1、0.2、0.4、0.7和1.0相对应的5种连续视标(2度、1度、30分、15分和7分)的P100潜伏期和波幅。图形VEP估计视力(PVEP-VA)由对应最小视标大小的视力确定,单侧病例两眼间差异正常,双侧病例有P100潜伏期和波幅的规范数据。通过一系列诈病临床测试确定最佳表现视力(模拟检查技术后获得的视力[VA(aset)])。
比较PVEP-VA与VA(aset)。
在单纯诈病者中,所有眼(20只眼)的PVEP-VA均为1.0(所有视标记录均正常),所有受试者均被证实为诈病者(真阳性)。在夸大病情者中,81名(77.8%)患有潜在眼科疾病者的PVEP-VA与VA(aset)之间相差±1斯内伦行。图形VEP估计视力与VA(aset)密切相关(r = 0.670)。PVEP在功能性视力丧失中的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值分别为97.2%、62.5%、94.5%和76.9%。
采用5种连续视标大小的图形VEP检测可客观界定视力,尤其是在单纯诈病者中;然而,PVEP结果应结合临床检查进行评估,临床检查仍是揭示诈病的金标准方法。