Romero Ana Carla Leite, Reis Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa, Oliveira Anna Caroline Silva de, Oliveira Simões Humberto de, Oliveira Junqueira Cinthia Amorim de, Frizzo Ana Cláudia Figueiredo
Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Department of Phonoaudiology, School of Philosophy and Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho, Marilia Campus, Marilia, SP, Brazil.
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Oct;21(4):347-350. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1599096. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
The P300 test requires well-defined and unique criteria, in addition to training for the examiners, for a uniform analysis of studies and to avoid variations and errors in the interpretation of measurement results. The objective of this study is to verify whether there are differences in P300 with and without subtraction of traces of standard and nonstandard stimuli. We conducted this study in collaboration with two research electrophysiology laboratories. From Laboratory 1, we selected 40 tests of subjects between 7-44 years, from Laboratory 2, we selected 83 tests of subjects between 18-44 years. We first performed the identification with the nonstandard stimuli; then, we subtracted the nonstandard stimuli from the standard stimuli. The examiners identified the waves, performing a descriptive and comparative analysis of traces with and without subtraction. After a comparative analysis of the traces with and without subtraction, there was no significant difference when compared with analysis of traces in both laboratories, within the conditions, of right ears ( = 0.13 and 0.28 for differences between latency and amplitude measurements) and left ears ( = 0.15 and 0.09 for differences between latency and amplitude measurements) from Laboratory 1. As for Laboratory 2, when investigating both ears, results did not identify significant differences ( = 0.098 and 0.28 for differences between latency and amplitude measurements). There was no difference verified in traces with and without subtraction. We suggest the identification of this potential performed through nonstandard stimuli.
P300测试除了需要对检查人员进行培训外,还需要明确且独特的标准,以便对研究进行统一分析,并避免测量结果解释中的差异和误差。本研究的目的是验证在减去和不减去标准与非标准刺激痕迹的情况下,P300是否存在差异。我们与两个研究电生理实验室合作进行了这项研究。从实验室1中,我们选取了40名年龄在7至44岁之间受试者的测试;从实验室2中,我们选取了83名年龄在18至44岁之间受试者的测试。我们首先用非标准刺激进行识别;然后,从标准刺激中减去非标准刺激。检查人员识别这些波形,对减去和未减去刺激的痕迹进行描述性和对比分析。在对减去和未减去刺激的痕迹进行对比分析后,与两个实验室在相同条件下右耳(潜伏期和波幅测量差异的P值分别为0.13和0.28)和实验室1左耳(潜伏期和波幅测量差异的P值分别为0.15和0.09)的痕迹分析相比,没有显著差异。至于实验室2,在对双耳进行研究时,结果未发现显著差异(潜伏期和波幅测量差异的P值分别为0.098和0.28)。减去和未减去刺激的痕迹之间未验证出差异。我们建议通过非标准刺激来识别这种可能性。