Suppr超能文献

奥霍恩闪烁试验与视觉诱发电位在视神经炎诊断中的比较

[Comparison of the Aulhorn flicker test with visual evoked potentials in the diagnosis of optic neuritis].

作者信息

Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Diener H C, Fahle M

机构信息

Abteilung für Pathophysiologie des Sehens und Neuroophthalmologie, Universitäts-Augenklinik, Tübingen.

出版信息

Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1990;87(2):171-7.

PMID:2358274
Abstract

The Aulhorn flicker test and visual evoked cortical potentials (VEP) are of great value for the diagnosis of optic neuritis (ON). In the present study, the two methods were compared for the first time within the same group of patients. The study comprised 405 eyes (175 suffering from active or subsided ON). The results were evaluated with a double-blind procedure. With the flicker test, the subjective brightness of flickering light is determined as a function of the flicker frequency. This test gives pathological results only in active ON and normalizes when the active phase is over. The test can discriminate between active and subsided ON as well as between the recurrent and chronic courses of the disease. Differentiation is not possible with the VEP, since the VEP latencies are prolonged even after the end of the active period of the disease. The sensitivity of the flicker test was 84.4%. The sensitivity of the VEP was 72.7% for our group of patients suffering from ON if the criterion of increased latency was used alone. In the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), the proportion of correctly identified pathological VEP results is increased because of the detection of demyelination of the optic nerve that causes no clinical symptoms. The specificity of the flicker test was 97.8% and that of the VEP 86.5%. If both methods were combined, the sensitivity was 98.4% and specificity 99.6%. The two methods obviously have different characteristics and seem to rely upon different demyelination effects. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages as well as optimal indications.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

奥 Horn 闪烁试验和视觉诱发电位(VEP)对视神经炎(ON)的诊断具有重要价值。在本研究中,首次在同一组患者中对这两种方法进行了比较。该研究包括405只眼睛(175只患有活动性或已消退的ON)。结果采用双盲程序进行评估。通过闪烁试验,闪烁光的主观亮度作为闪烁频率的函数来确定。该试验仅在活动性ON时给出病理结果,在活动期结束时恢复正常。该试验可以区分活动性和已消退的ON,以及疾病的复发和慢性病程。VEP无法进行区分,因为即使在疾病活动期结束后,VEP潜伏期仍会延长。闪烁试验的敏感性为84.4%。对于我们这组患有ON的患者,如果仅使用潜伏期延长的标准,VEP的敏感性为72.7%。在多发性硬化症(MS)的诊断中,由于检测到无临床症状的视神经脱髓鞘,正确识别的病理性VEP结果的比例会增加。闪烁试验的特异性为97.8%,VEP的特异性为86.5%。如果将两种方法结合使用,敏感性为98.4%,特异性为99.6%。这两种方法显然具有不同的特点,似乎依赖于不同的脱髓鞘效应。每种方法都有其优缺点以及最佳适应症。(摘要截短至250字)

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验