Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 2, 2026
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer
1Department of Out Patient Service, The Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Postal code: 325000, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Background:
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential (icVEP) with that of retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCILP) analysis using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
Methods:
A total of 45 patients were enrolled: 25 patients with open-angle glaucoma and 20 healthy patients. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Moreover, the OCT examination was used to analyze the structures of the GCIPL. The icVEP technique was used to detect the transmission function of the magnocellular pathway, which is mainly managed by the retinal ganglion cells. The quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the diagnostic power of GCIPL analysis and that of icVEP were performed. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of GCIPL analysis and icVEP were compared using the Clarke-Pearson method. The sensitivity and specificity of the two techniques were analyzed and compared using the McNemar test.
Results:
With the quantitative comparison, the AUC of icVEP (AUC = 0.892) was higher than that of GCIPL analysis (AUC = 0.814). However, there was no statistical significance between the AUCs of icVEP and GCIPL (P > 0.05). With the qualitative comparison, the sensitivity of icVEP was 80%, and its specificity was 90%. The sensitivity of GCIPL analysis was 72%, and its specificity was 85%. There was no significant difference between the sensitivitiesor specificities of icVEP and GCIPL analysis (P > 0.05). Moreover, 30 (66.67%) eyeshad similar resultsbetween icVEP and GCIPL analysis, and 15 (33.33%) eyes had different results (7 eyes had abnormal results with GCIPL analysisbut normal results with icVEP, and8 eyes had normal results with GCIPL analysisbut abnormal results with icVEP).
Conclusions:
The diagnostic power of icVEP was close to that of GCIPL analysis whether the comparison was based on the qualitative or quantitative data.
