Yan ke xue bao = Eye science · 2000
A comparative evaluation of Humphrey perimetry and the multi-channel pattern visual evoked potentials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hu C, Wu L, Wu D Z, Long S
Аннотация
PURPOSES: To compare the multi-channel pattern visual evoked potentials to Humphrey perimetry in the assessment of central visual function in primary open angle glaucoma.
METHODS: The multi-channel checkerboard reversal PVEPs waves to full-field and half-field stimulus of 25 normal persons and 74 patients with primary open angle glaucoma were recorded and analyzed, All patients were examined using Humphrey Field Analyzer. The area of visual field corresponding to the area of retina stimulated during multi-channel PVEPs testing were analysed, straight-line correlation and regression analyses of the various multi-channel PVEPs parameters and the total dB losses were performed.
RESULTS: The multi-channel PVEPs demonstrated a low detection rate compared with Humphrey perimetry in the early glaucoma, absolute latency and field loss were correlated in the late stage of glaucoma, and absolute amplitude and field loss were not correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: In relation to signalling "early" loss the multi-channel PVEPs was inferior to Humphrey perimetry, in late loss of primary open angle glaucoma, multi-channel PVEPs can provide a valuable, objective complement to Humphrey perimetry.
METHODS: The multi-channel checkerboard reversal PVEPs waves to full-field and half-field stimulus of 25 normal persons and 74 patients with primary open angle glaucoma were recorded and analyzed, All patients were examined using Humphrey Field Analyzer. The area of visual field corresponding to the area of retina stimulated during multi-channel PVEPs testing were analysed, straight-line correlation and regression analyses of the various multi-channel PVEPs parameters and the total dB losses were performed.
RESULTS: The multi-channel PVEPs demonstrated a low detection rate compared with Humphrey perimetry in the early glaucoma, absolute latency and field loss were correlated in the late stage of glaucoma, and absolute amplitude and field loss were not correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: In relation to signalling "early" loss the multi-channel PVEPs was inferior to Humphrey perimetry, in late loss of primary open angle glaucoma, multi-channel PVEPs can provide a valuable, objective complement to Humphrey perimetry.