The diagnostic accuracy of photopic negative responses evoked by broadband and chromatic stimuli in a clinically heterogeneous population.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Documenta Ophthalmologica Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-27 DOI:10.1007/s10633-023-09956-5
Shaun M Leo, Magella M Neveu, Patrick Yu-Wai-Man, Omar A Mahroo, Anthony G Robson
{"title":"The diagnostic accuracy of photopic negative responses evoked by broadband and chromatic stimuli in a clinically heterogeneous population.","authors":"Shaun M Leo, Magella M Neveu, Patrick Yu-Wai-Man, Omar A Mahroo, Anthony G Robson","doi":"10.1007/s10633-023-09956-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the photopic negative response (PhNR) elicited by red-blue (RB) and white-white (WW) stimuli, for detection of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) dysfunction in a heterogeneous clinical cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults referred for electrophysiological investigations were recruited consecutively for this single-centre, prospective, paired diagnostic accuracy study. PhNRs were recorded to red flashes (1.5 cd·s·m<sup>-2</sup>) on a blue background (10 cd·m<sup>-2</sup>) and to white flashes on a white background (the latter being the ISCEV standard LA 3 stimulus). PhNR results were compared with a reference test battery assessing RGC/optic nerve structure and function including optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal nerve fibre layer thickness and mean RGC volume measurements, fundus photography, pattern electroretinography and visual evoked potentials. Primary outcome measures were differences in sensitivity and specificity of the two PhNR methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and forty-three participants were initially enrolled, with 200 (median age 54; range 18-95; female 65%) meeting inclusion criteria. Sensitivity was 53% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 39% to 68%) and 62% (95% CI 48% to 76%), for WW and RB PhNRs, respectively. Specificity was 80% (95% CI 74% to 86%) and 78% (95% CI 72% to 85%), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between sensitivities (p = 0.046) but not specificities (p = 0.08) of the two methods. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.73 for WW and 0.74 for RB PhNRs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PhNRs to red flashes on a blue background may be more sensitive than white-on-white stimuli, but there is no significant difference between specificities. This study highlights the value and potential convenience of using white-on-white stimuli, already used widely for routine ERG assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":11207,"journal":{"name":"Documenta Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":"165-177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10638186/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Documenta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-023-09956-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the photopic negative response (PhNR) elicited by red-blue (RB) and white-white (WW) stimuli, for detection of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) dysfunction in a heterogeneous clinical cohort.

Methods: Adults referred for electrophysiological investigations were recruited consecutively for this single-centre, prospective, paired diagnostic accuracy study. PhNRs were recorded to red flashes (1.5 cd·s·m-2) on a blue background (10 cd·m-2) and to white flashes on a white background (the latter being the ISCEV standard LA 3 stimulus). PhNR results were compared with a reference test battery assessing RGC/optic nerve structure and function including optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal nerve fibre layer thickness and mean RGC volume measurements, fundus photography, pattern electroretinography and visual evoked potentials. Primary outcome measures were differences in sensitivity and specificity of the two PhNR methods.

Results: Two hundred and forty-three participants were initially enrolled, with 200 (median age 54; range 18-95; female 65%) meeting inclusion criteria. Sensitivity was 53% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 39% to 68%) and 62% (95% CI 48% to 76%), for WW and RB PhNRs, respectively. Specificity was 80% (95% CI 74% to 86%) and 78% (95% CI 72% to 85%), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between sensitivities (p = 0.046) but not specificities (p = 0.08) of the two methods. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.73 for WW and 0.74 for RB PhNRs.

Conclusion: PhNRs to red flashes on a blue background may be more sensitive than white-on-white stimuli, but there is no significant difference between specificities. This study highlights the value and potential convenience of using white-on-white stimuli, already used widely for routine ERG assessment.

Abstract Image

在临床异质人群中,宽带和彩色刺激诱发的光视觉阴性反应的诊断准确性。
目的:比较红蓝(RB)和白白(WW)刺激引起的光视觉阴性反应(PhNR)对异质性临床队列中视网膜神经节细胞(RGC)功能障碍的诊断准确性。方法:在这项单中心、前瞻性、配对诊断准确性研究中,连续招募接受电生理学研究的成年人。PhNR在蓝色背景(10cd·m-2)上记录为红色闪光(1.5cd·s·m-2。将PhNR结果与评估RGC/视神经结构和功能的参考测试组进行比较,包括光学相干断层扫描(OCT)视网膜神经纤维层厚度和平均RGC体积测量、眼底摄影、模式视网膜电图和视觉诱发电位。主要的结果指标是两种PhNR方法的敏感性和特异性差异。结果:243名参与者最初入选,其中200人(中位年龄54岁;范围18-95岁;女性65%)符合入选标准。WW和RB PhNRs的敏感性分别为53%(95%置信区间[CI]39%至68%)和62%(95%可信区间48%至76%)。特异性分别为80%(95%CI 74%至86%)和78%(95%CI 72%至85%)。敏感性之间存在统计学显著差异(p = 0.046),但没有特异性(p = 0.08)。WW的受试者-操作者特征曲线下面积(ROC)值为0.73,RB的PhNRs为0.74。结论:PhNRs对蓝色背景下的红色闪光可能比白色刺激下的白色更敏感,但特异性之间没有显著差异。这项研究强调了使用白对白刺激的价值和潜在的便利性,这种刺激已经广泛用于常规ERG评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Documenta Ophthalmologica
Documenta Ophthalmologica 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
21.40%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Documenta Ophthalmologica is an official publication of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. The purpose of the journal is to promote the understanding and application of clinical electrophysiology of vision. Documenta Ophthalmologica will publish reviews, research articles, technical notes, brief reports and case studies which inform the readers about basic and clinical sciences related to visual electrodiagnosis and means to improve diagnosis and clinical management of patients using visual electrophysiology. Studies may involve animals or humans. In either case appropriate care must be taken to follow the Declaration of Helsinki for human subject or appropriate humane standards of animal care (e.g., the ARVO standards on Animal Care and Use).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信