Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492022005007203 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT 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. |
id |
CBO-2_8e69a395b569524979e924078e43b3d1 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0004-27492022005007203 |
network_acronym_str |
CBO-2 |
network_name_str |
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic childrenAmblyopiaVisual acuityVisual evoked potentialsVision testsHumansChildAdolescentABSTRACT 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.Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia2022-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492022005007203Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia n.ahead 2022reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)instacron:CBO10.5935/0004-2749.2021-0130info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKasikci,MuratKusbeci,TuncayYavas,GulizPolat,OnurInan,Umiteng2022-07-12T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0004-27492022005007203Revistahttp://aboonline.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpaboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br1678-29250004-2749opendoar:2022-07-12T00:00Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
title |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children Kasikci,Murat Amblyopia Visual acuity Visual evoked potentials Vision tests Humans Child Adolescent |
title_short |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
title_full |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
title_sort |
Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children |
author |
Kasikci,Murat |
author_facet |
Kasikci,Murat Kusbeci,Tuncay Yavas,Guliz Polat,Onur Inan,Umit |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Kusbeci,Tuncay Yavas,Guliz Polat,Onur Inan,Umit |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kasikci,Murat Kusbeci,Tuncay Yavas,Guliz Polat,Onur Inan,Umit |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Amblyopia Visual acuity Visual evoked potentials Vision tests Humans Child Adolescent |
topic |
Amblyopia Visual acuity Visual evoked potentials Vision tests Humans Child Adolescent |
description |
ABSTRACT 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. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492022005007203 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492022005007203 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.5935/0004-2749.2021-0130 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia n.ahead 2022 reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO) instacron:CBO |
instname_str |
Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO) |
instacron_str |
CBO |
institution |
CBO |
reponame_str |
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) |
collection |
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
aboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br |
_version_ |
1754209032345747456 |