Chen XiangWu, Zhao YingXi
Department of Out Patient Service, The Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Postal code: 325000, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 May 22;17(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0472-9.
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).
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.
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).
The diagnostic power of icVEP was close to that of GCIPL analysis whether the comparison was based on the qualitative or quantitative data.
本研究旨在比较孤立检查视觉诱发电位（icVEP）与使用光学相干断层扫描（OCT）分析视网膜神经节细胞-内丛状层（GCILP）的诊断性能。
共纳入45例患者：25例开角型青光眼患者和20例健康患者。所有患者均接受了全面的眼科检查。此外，使用OCT检查分析GCIPL的结构。icVEP技术用于检测主要由视网膜神经节细胞管理的大细胞通路的传递功能。对GCIPL分析和icVEP的诊断能力进行了定量和定性比较。使用Clarke-Pearson方法比较了GCIPL分析和icVEP的受试者操作特征曲线（AUC）下的面积。使用McNemar检验分析并比较了两种技术的敏感性和特异性。
定量比较时，icVEP的AUC（AUC = 0.892）高于GCIPL分析的AUC（AUC = 0.814）。然而，icVEP和GCIPL的AUC之间无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。定性比较时，icVEP的敏感性为80%，特异性为90%。GCIPL分析 的敏感性为72%，特异性为85%。icVEP和GCIPL分析的敏感性或特异性之间无显著差异（P > 0.05）。此外，30只眼（66.67%）在icVEP和GCIPL分析之间结果相似，15只眼（33.33%）结果不同（7只眼GCIPL分析结果异常但icVEP结果正常，8只眼GCIPL分析结果正常但icVEP结果异常）。
无论基于定性还是定量数据进行比较，icVEP的诊断能力都与GCIPL分析相近。
Zotero 插件
