pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Evaluation of Agreement Between Sweep Visual Evoked Potential Testing and Subjective Visual Acuity - PubMed

  • ️Sun Jan 01 2023

Evaluation of Agreement Between Sweep Visual Evoked Potential Testing and Subjective Visual Acuity

Osman Ahmet Polat et al. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2023.

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement of visual acuity (VA) obtained with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) method with the VA obtained with the Snellen chart. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of age and gender on agreement.

Materials and methods: Best corrected VAs of subjects were recorded with the Snellen chart, and sVEP testing was performed according to the recommendations of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV). Snellen VAs and sVEP measurements were analyzed using logMAR conversion for statistical analysis. Agreement was evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: The study included 49 subjects with a mean age of 53.5±17.3 years (range: 19-75 years) and mean Snellen VA of 0.31±0.32 logMAR (range: 1.3-0.0 logMAR). In the Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences between the VA and sVEP measurements (VA-sVEP) were significantly different and outside the limits of agreement (p=0.035). A significant proportional bias (p=0.0007) was found in the regression analysis performed between VA-sVEP and the mean VA. According to the Bland-Altman analysis of sex subgroups, there was a significant difference between VA and sVEP measurements in female subjects (p=0.006). The difference between VA and sVEP measurement increased significantly with older age (R2: 0.306, p<0.001, β: 0.05 [0.03, 0.08]).

Conclusion: In conclusion, sVEP measurements and VAs did not show statistical agreement. Cranial anatomy and endocrine differences of the subjects may affect their sVEP measurements. The difference between the methods varies according to VA level. Directly using sVEP results instead of VA would not be appropriate.

Keywords: Snellen; Visual evoked potentials; pattern VEP; spatial frequency limits; sweep VEP.

©Copyright 2023 by the Turkish Ophthalmological Association / Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology published by Galenos Publishing House.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Bland-Altman plots of agreement between psychophysical (Snellen) visual acuity (VA) and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) values. Data were converted to logMAR values for the plots. There was a proportional bias for all subjects and female subjects. There was agreement between methods for male subjects

Figure 2
Figure 2

Scatter plots between age and the difference between Snellen visual acuity (VA) and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) values (VA-sVEP) (A) and VA (B). The difference between the two methods increased with age and was located outside the confidence interval in graph A. Subjects with low VA were more clustered in the older age group in graph B

Similar articles

References

    1. Hamilton R, Bach M, Heinrich SP, Hoffmann MB, Odom JV, McCulloch DL, Thompson DA. ISCEV extended protocol for VEP methods of estimation of visual acuity. Doc Ophthalmol. 2021;142:17–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jeon J, Oh S, Kyung S. Assessment of visual disability using visual evoked potentials. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:36. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Almoqbel F, Leat SJ, Irving E. The technique, validity and clinical use of the sweep VEP. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28:393–403. - PubMed
    1. Hamilton R, Bach M, Heinrich SP, Hoffmann MB, Odom JV, McCulloch DL, Thompson DA. VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review. Doc Ophthalmol. 2021;142:25–74. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell FW, Maffei L. Electrophysiological evidence for the existence of orientation and size detectors in the human visual system. J Physiol. 1970;207:635–652. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources