Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2015

01-10-2015 | Original Research Article

Reproducibility in the global indices for multifocal visual evoked potentials and Humphrey visual fields in controls and glaucomatous eyes within a 2-year period

Authors: Yukako Inoue, Kei Kato, Seiko Kamata, Kumiko Ishikawa, Makoto Nakamura

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

In previous studies, we applied receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to the signal-to-noise ratio distributions in the signal and noise windows of multifocal VEP (mfVEP) response. The areas under the curve thus obtained (SNR-AUC) were found to quantitatively detect glaucomatous visual field damage. The present study evaluated the reproducibility of SNR-AUC and the Humphrey visual field (HVF) global indices in 37 eyes with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG; POAG group) and in 30 controls (control group) within a 2-year period.

Methods

The HVF SITA standard 24-2 and mfVEP were recorded at three separate sessions for each individual. The intersession variability for SNR-AUC, mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) was evaluated using the repeated measures of analysis of variance and Bland–Altman plots. The logarithmically converted coefficients of variation (CV) of PSD and SNR-AUC were compared between the control and POAG groups. Linear regression analyses were performed on the logarithmic CV of SNR-AUC against the average MD, PSD, and SNR-AUC.

Results

SNR-AUC in the POAG group was significantly lower and its CV was greater compared with the control group (P < 0.0001). MD value recorded at the third visit had significantly improved than that at the first visit in the control group (analysis of variance, P = 0.03), whereas PSD value was significantly worse in the POAG group (P = 0.024). In the POAG group, SNR-AUC CV increased as the glaucoma stage became more advanced when evaluated by any functional parameters tested (i.e., MD, PSD, or SNR-AUC).

Conclusions

The SNR-AUC of mfVEP showed a high reproducibility in control group, whereas it fluctuated more in the POAG group according to the disease severity. MD in the control group and PSD in POAG group fluctuated among sessions during the 2-year period.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1994) The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90:65–81CrossRefPubMed Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1994) The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90:65–81CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, Billson FA (1998) Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–950PubMed Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, Billson FA (1998) Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–950PubMed
3.
4.
go back to reference Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22:201–251CrossRefPubMed Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22:201–251CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI (2002) Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 133:29–39CrossRefPubMed Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI (2002) Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 133:29–39CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Winn BJ, Ohri N, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2004) Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:492–498CrossRefPubMed Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Winn BJ, Ohri N, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2004) Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:492–498CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2005) Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol 123:729–739CrossRefPubMed Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2005) Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol 123:729–739CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Balachandran C, Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2006) Comparison of objective diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Heidelberg retinal tomography and multifocal visual evoked potentials. J Glaucoma 15:110–116CrossRefPubMed Balachandran C, Graham SL, Klistorner A, Goldberg I (2006) Comparison of objective diagnostic tests in glaucoma. Heidelberg retinal tomography and multifocal visual evoked potentials. J Glaucoma 15:110–116CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Patterson E, Jamil A, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA (2007) Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:1173–1180CrossRefPubMed Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Patterson E, Jamil A, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA, Johnson CA (2007) Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:1173–1180CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
go back to reference Ishikawa K, Nagai T, Yamada Y, Negi A, Nakamura M (2011) Optimal conditions for multifocal VEP recording for normal Japanese population established by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 122:29–37CrossRefPubMed Ishikawa K, Nagai T, Yamada Y, Negi A, Nakamura M (2011) Optimal conditions for multifocal VEP recording for normal Japanese population established by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 122:29–37CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Nakamura M, Ishikawa K, Nagai T, Negi A (2011) Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage. Doc Ophthalmol 123:93–108CrossRefPubMed Nakamura M, Ishikawa K, Nagai T, Negi A (2011) Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage. Doc Ophthalmol 123:93–108CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Chen CS, Hood DC, Zhang X, Karam EZ, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC (2003) Repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential in normal and glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma 12:399–408CrossRefPubMed Chen CS, Hood DC, Zhang X, Karam EZ, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC (2003) Repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential in normal and glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma 12:399–408CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, Hensen DB (2004) Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:4035–4040CrossRefPubMed Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, Hensen DB (2004) Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:4035–4040CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Klistorner A, Graham SL (2005) Intertest variability of mfVEP amplitude: reducing its effect on the interpretation of sequential tests. Doc Ophthalmol 111:159–167CrossRefPubMed Klistorner A, Graham SL (2005) Intertest variability of mfVEP amplitude: reducing its effect on the interpretation of sequential tests. Doc Ophthalmol 111:159–167CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Johnson CA (2006) Repeatability of normal multifocal VEP: implications for detecting progression. J Glaucoma 15:131–141CrossRefPubMed Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, Hood DC, Johnson CA (2006) Repeatability of normal multifocal VEP: implications for detecting progression. J Glaucoma 15:131–141CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Wangsupadilok B, Greenstein VC, Kanadani FN, Grippo TM, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Hood DC (2009) A method to detect progression of glaucoma using the multifocal visual evoked potential technique. Doc Ophthalmol 118:139–150PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wangsupadilok B, Greenstein VC, Kanadani FN, Grippo TM, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Hood DC (2009) A method to detect progression of glaucoma using the multifocal visual evoked potential technique. Doc Ophthalmol 118:139–150PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF (2012) The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invet Ophthalmom Vis Sci 53:5985–5990CrossRef Russell RA, Crabb DP, Malik R, Garway-Heath DF (2012) The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. Invet Ophthalmom Vis Sci 53:5985–5990CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Anderson D, Pattela V (1992) Automated static perimetry, 2nd edn. St Louis, Missouri, pp 143–153 Anderson D, Pattela V (1992) Automated static perimetry, 2nd edn. St Louis, Missouri, pp 143–153
20.
go back to reference Nakamura M, Kato K, Kamata S, Ishikawa K, Nagai T (2014) Effects of refractive errors on multifocal VEP responses and standard automated perimetry tests in a single population. Doc Ophthalmol 128:179–189CrossRefPubMed Nakamura M, Kato K, Kamata S, Ishikawa K, Nagai T (2014) Effects of refractive errors on multifocal VEP responses and standard automated perimetry tests in a single population. Doc Ophthalmol 128:179–189CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Meigen T, Krämer M (2007) Optimizing electrode positions and analysis strategies for multifocal VEP recordings by ROC analysis. Vis Res 47:1445–1454CrossRefPubMed Meigen T, Krämer M (2007) Optimizing electrode positions and analysis strategies for multifocal VEP recordings by ROC analysis. Vis Res 47:1445–1454CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1987) Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 105:1544–1549CrossRefPubMed Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1987) Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 105:1544–1549CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1989) The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 107:81–86CrossRefPubMed Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1989) The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 107:81–86CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Gordon MO, Kass MA (2013) The ocular hypertension treatment study group. Seasonal changes in visual field sensitivity and intraocular pressure in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology 120:724–730PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Gordon MO, Kass MA (2013) The ocular hypertension treatment study group. Seasonal changes in visual field sensitivity and intraocular pressure in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology 120:724–730PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Metadata
Title
Reproducibility in the global indices for multifocal visual evoked potentials and Humphrey visual fields in controls and glaucomatous eyes within a 2-year period
Authors
Yukako Inoue
Kei Kato
Seiko Kamata
Kumiko Ishikawa
Makoto Nakamura
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-015-9506-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2015 Go to the issue