Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic
Murat Kasikci1, Tuncay Kusbeci2, Guliz Yavas3
1Ophthalmology Department, Mugla Education and Research Hospital, Mugla, Turkey.
Insights
Sweep visual evoked potential (VEP) offers a reliable method for assessing visual acuity in children, comparable to traditional Snellen charts. This objective technique is valuable for both healthy and amblyopic pediatric populations.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Pediatric Optometry
- Neuroscience
Background:
- Visual acuity assessment in children is crucial for early detection and management of visual impairments.
- Traditional methods like Snellen charts can be challenging in young or non-communicative children.
- Sweep visual evoked potential (VEP) offers a potential objective alternative.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare visual acuity measurements in healthy and amblyopic children using sweep visual evoked potential (VEP) against Snellen visual acuity testing.
- To determine the reliability and comparability of sweep VEP in pediatric populations.
Main Methods:
- A cohort of 160 children aged 6-17 years was studied, divided into healthy controls (Group 1) and children with strabismus or amblyopia (Group 2).
- All participants underwent a comprehensive ophthalmological examination, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing using Snellen charts, and sweep VEP measurement.
- Demographic data, ocular findings, BCVA, and sweep VEP results were systematically recorded.
Main Results:
- In healthy children (Group 1), sweep VEP visual acuity was slightly lower than Snellen BCVA, with Bland-Altman analysis showing good agreement (±0.11 logMAR for mean, ±0.023 logMAR for maximum).
- In amblyopic children (Group 2), sweep VEP also showed lower values compared to Snellen BCVA, with Bland-Altman differences of ±0.16 logMAR (mean) and ±0.19 logMAR (maximum).
- Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between methods in both groups, yet demonstrated comparable results and reliability.
Conclusions:
- Sweep visual evoked potential (VEP) provides visual acuity measurements comparable to Snellen visual acuity testing in children.
- This objective electrophysiological technique is a reliable tool for assessing visual acuity, particularly beneficial in pediatric cases where subjective testing may be difficult.
- Sweep VEP is a valuable adjunct for evaluating visual function in both healthy and visually impaired children.
Purpose:
To evaluate the visual acuity of healthy and amblyopic children using sweep visual evoked potential and compare the results with those of Snellen visual acuity testing.
Methods:
A total of 160 children aged 6-17 years were included in the study. Of these, 104 (65%) were aged 7-17 years old, able to verbally communicate, and did not have any systemic or ocular pathology (Group 1). Group 2 included 56 (35%) children aged 6-17 years, able to verbally communicate, and had strabismus or anisometropic amblyopia whose best corrected visual acuity was between 0.1 and 0.8. All subjects underwent a detailed ophthalmological examination and sweep visual evoked potential measurement. Demographic characteristics, ocular findings, best corrected visual acuity, and sweep visual evoked potential results were recorded.
Results:
In Group 1, the mean and maximum visual acuity values for sweep visual evoked potential were lower than the Snellen best corrected visual acuity (p<0.001, for both, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that in Group 1, the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and mean sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.11 logMAR, and the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and maximum sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.023 logMAR. In Group 2, the mean and maximum sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity were lower than the Snellen best corrected visual acuity (p<0.001 and p=0.009, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and mean sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.16 logMAR, and the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and maximum sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.19 logMAR.
Conclusions:
Sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity measurements have comparable results with Snellen visual acuity measurements. This technique is an objective and reliable method for evaluating visual acuity in children.
