Effect of recording duration on the diagnostic performance of multifocal visual-evoked potentials in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 175-182

  Fortune, Brad ^a   Zhang, Xian ^b   Hood, Donald C ^b   Demirel, Shaban ^a   Patterson, Emily ^a   Jamil, Annisa ^a   Mansberger, Steven L ^a   Cioffi, George A ^a   Johnson, Chris A ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Electrophysiology; Glaucoma; Multifocal visual evoked potential; Optic disc; Perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; EYE PHOTOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECORDING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETINA IMAGE; RETINA TOMOGRAPHY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL MASKING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; PHOTOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 42149141104     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31815678ac     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, et al. The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;90:65-81.
2. Hood DC, Greenstein VC. Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003;22:201-251.
3. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, et al. Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:937-950.
4. Klistorner A, Graham SL. Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2283-2299.
5. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, et al. Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:10-19.
6. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, et al. An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1580-1587.
7. Hood DC, Zhang X. Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;100:115-137.
8. Hasegawa S, Abe H. Mapping of glaucomatous visual field defects by multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:3341-3348.
9. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133:29-39.
10. Fortune B, Goh K, Demirel S, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field loss using the multifocal visual evoked potential. In: Henson DB, Wall M, eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003; Proceedings of the XVth International Perimetric Society Meeting. The Hague: Kugler; 2003:251-260.
11. Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Chen CS, et al. Multifocal visual evoked potential responses in glaucoma patients with unilateral hemifield defects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:34-40.
12. Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, et al. Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:4035-4040.
13. Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, et al. Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:492-498.
14. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Goldberg I. Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:729-739.
15. Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X. Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:4032-4038.
16. Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg J, et al. Objective perimetry using the multifocal visual evoked potential in central visual pathway lesions. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:739-744.
17. Danesh-Meyer HV, Carroll SC, Gaskin BJ, et al. Correlation of the multifocal visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in compressive optic neuropathies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:1458-1463.
18. Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, et al. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1173-1180.
19. Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Chu DH, et al. Detecting early functional damage in glaucoma suspect and ocular hypertensive patients with the multifocal VEP technique. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:321-327.
20. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:268-272.
21. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:177-185.
22. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St Louis: Mosby; 1993:47.
23. Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1557-1563.
24. Ford BA, Artes PH, McCormick TA, et al. Comparison of data analysis tools for detection of glaucoma with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1145-1150.
25. Fortune B, Zhang X, Hood DC, et al. Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004;109:87-100.
26. Hood DC, Zhang X, Hong JE, et al. Quantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:303-320.
27. Zhang X, Hood DC, Chen CS, et al. A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records. Doc Ophthalmol. 2002;104:287-302.
28. Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, et al. Repeatability of normal multifocal VEP: implications for detecting progression. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:131-141.
29. Harper R, Reeves B. Compliance with methodological standards when evaluating ophthalmic diagnostic tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1650-1657.