Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of multifocal VEPs to diagnose and quantify glaucomatous functional damage

To test whether multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) recording using two perpendicularly placed channels, as previously reported, to measure the degree of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) distribution overlap between a signal window and a noise window would efficiently detect and quantify glaucomatous damage. Humphrey visual field (HVF) and mfVEP were recorded from 56 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and mean deviation less than −15 dB and 62 age-matched ophthalmologically normal individuals. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (SNR-AUC) were calculated based on the proportion of mfVEP responses that exceeded a specific SNR criterion for both windows. Abnormal sectors with an SNR deviated from the previously established norm with P < 5% and 1% were counted. Diagnostic accuracy of the SNR-AUC was similar to that of the average total deviation (TD) of the HVF. The hemifield agreement to detect a defect in mfVEP and HVF was 77.1–87.3%, which was similar to previous reports using multiple channels. Correlation coefficients between SNR-AUC and average TD (0.74 in the upper hemifield and 0.65 in the lower) were significantly higher than those between the sums of abnormal locations on the mfVEP and HVF probability plots (0.27 and 0.33, respectively). Two perpendicular channels can detect and quantify functional damage due to glaucoma. The SNR-AUC may be used as a global index to quantify diffuse glaucomatous functional loss.

[1]  S. Graham,et al.  Comparison of Objective Diagnostic Tests in Glaucoma: Heidelberg Retinal Tomography and Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials , 2006, Journal of glaucoma.

[2]  Ivan Goldberg,et al.  Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. , 2005, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  A signal-to-noise analysis of multifocal VEP responses: an objective definition for poor records , 2002, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[4]  S. Graham,et al.  Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  J. Caprioli,et al.  Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  Douglas R. Anderson Automated Static Perimetry , 1992 .

[7]  Thomas Meigen,et al.  Optimizing electrode positions and analysis strategies for multifocal VEP recordings by ROC analysis , 2007, Vision Research.

[8]  Makoto Nakamura,et al.  Optimal conditions for multifocal VEP recording for normal Japanese population established by receiver operating characteristic analysis , 2011, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[9]  Donald C. Hood,et al.  A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage , 2007, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[10]  S. Graham,et al.  Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  S. Graham,et al.  Objective perimetry in glaucoma. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[12]  S. Klein,et al.  The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[13]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[14]  S Vida,et al.  A computer program for non-parametric receiver operating characteristic analysis. , 1993, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[15]  Nitin Ohri,et al.  Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  D. Henson,et al.  Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  Makoto Nakamura,et al.  Regional relationship between retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and corresponding visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes. , 2008, Archives of ophthalmology.

[18]  S Kangovi,et al.  An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  Donald C Hood,et al.  Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma , 2003, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[20]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[21]  V. Greenstein,et al.  Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence of a linear relationship. , 2002, Archives of ophthalmology.

[22]  Chris A Johnson,et al.  Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  D. Hood,et al.  Detecting Glaucomatous Damage with Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials: How Can a Monocular Test Work? , 2003, Journal of glaucoma.

[24]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.