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.
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).