American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 149, Issue 3 , Pages 488-495, March 2010

Pattern Electroretinogram and Psychophysical Tests of Visual Function for Discriminating Between Healthy and Glaucoma Eyes

Hamilton Glaucoma Center and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

Accepted 26 September 2009.

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the pattern electroretinogram (pattern ERG) to that of standard automated perimetry (SAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry for discriminating between healthy and glaucomatous eyes.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

Eighty-three eyes of 42 healthy recruits and 92 eyes of 54 glaucoma patients (based on optic disc appearance) from the University of California, San Diego, Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study were tested with pattern ERG for glaucoma detection (PERGLA; Lace Elettronica, Pisa, Italy), SAP, SWAP, and FDT within 9 months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and compared for pattern ERG amplitude and SAP, SWAP, and FDT mean deviation and pattern standard deviation (PSD). Sensitivities and specificities were compared and agreement among tests was described.

Results

The area under the ROC curve for pattern ERG amplitude was 0.744 (95% confidence interval = 0.670, 0.818). The ROC curve area was 0.786 (0.720, 0.853) for SAP PSD, 0.732 (0.659, 0.806) for SWAP PSD, and 0.818 (0.758, 0.879) for FDT PSD. At 95% specificity, sensitivities of SAP and FDT PSD were significantly higher than that of pattern ERG amplitude; at 80% specificity, similar sensitivities were observed among tests. Agreement among tests was slight to moderate.

Conclusion

The diagnostic accuracy of the pattern ERG amplitude was similar to that of SAP and SWAP, but somewhat worse than that of FDT. Nevertheless, the pattern ERG may hold some advantage over psychophysical testing because of its largely objective nature.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9394(09)00740-5

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.09.027

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 149, Issue 3 , Pages 488-495, March 2010