Enyedi L B, Dev S, Cox T A
Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Ophthalmology. 1998 May;105(5):871-3. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)95029-1.
The authors compared two methods, the Marcus Gunn test and the alternating light test, for detecting a relative afferent pupillary defect.
A randomized, prospective clinical trial.
Fourteen patients with unilateral optic neuropathy.
The Marcus Gunn and alternating light tests were performed on each patient.
The results of the Marcus Gunn and altemating light tests for detecting a relative afferent pupillary defect on the affected side.
The Marcus Gunn test was able to identify the affected eye in only 8 of 14 patients, whereas the alternating light test correctly identified the affected eye in 13 of 14 patients. Results of the Marcus Gunn test were indeterminate in 4 of 14 patients and were incorrect in 2 of 14 patients. Results of the alternating light test were indeterminate in one patient and never incorrectly identified the affected eye.
The alternating light test is superior to the Marcus Gunn test for detecting relative afferent pupillary defects.
作者比较了两种检测相对性传入性瞳孔障碍的方法，即马库斯·贡恩试验和交替光试验。
一项随机、前瞻性临床试验。
14名单侧视神经病变患者。
对每位患者进行马库斯·贡恩试验和交替光试验。
马库斯·贡恩试验和交替光试验检测患侧相对性传入性瞳孔障碍的结果。
马库斯·贡恩试验仅能在14例患者中的8例中识别出患眼，而交替光试验在14例患者中的13例中正确识别出了患眼。马库斯·贡恩试验的结果在14例患者中的4例中不确定，在14例患者中的2例中错误。交替光试验的结果在1例患者中不确定，且从未错误识别患眼。
在检测相对性传入性瞳孔障碍方面，交替光试验优于马库斯·贡恩试验。
