Reference ranges for clinical electrophysiology of vision.

INTRODUCTION: Establishing robust reference intervals for clinical procedures has received much attention from international clinical laboratories, with approved guidelines. Physiological measurement laboratories have given this topic less attention; however, most of the principles are transferable. METHODS: Herein, we summarise those principles and expand them to cover bilateral measurements and one-tailed reference intervals, which are common issues for those interpreting clinical visual electrophysiology tests such as electroretinograms (ERGs), visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and electrooculograms (EOGs). RESULTS: The gold standard process of establishing and defining reference intervals, which are adequately reliable, entails collecting data from a minimum of 120 suitable reference individuals for each partition (e.g. sex, age) and defining limits with nonparametric methods. Parametric techniques may be used under some conditions. A brief outline of methods for defining reference limits from patient data (indirect sampling) is given. Reference intervals established elsewhere, or with older protocols, can be transferred or verified with as few as 40 and 20 suitable reference individuals, respectively. Consideration is given to small numbers of reference subjects, interpretation of serial measurements using subject-based reference values, multidimensional reference regions and age-dependent reference values. Bilateral measurements, despite their correlation, can be used to improve reference intervals although additional care is required in computing the confidence in the reference interval or the reference interval itself when bilateral measurements are only available from some of subjects. DISCUSSION: Good quality reference limits minimise false-positive and false-negative results, thereby maximising the clinical utility and patient benefit. Quality indicators include using appropriately sized reference datasets with appropriate numerical handling for reporting; using subject-based reference limits where appropriate; and limiting tests for each patient to only those which are clinically indicated, independent and highly discriminating.

Enhancing Risk Assessment in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy by Combining Measures of Retinal Function and Structure.

Purpose: To determine whether combining measures of retinal structure and function predicts need for intervention for diabetic retinopathy (DR) better than either modality alone. Methods: The study sample consisted of 279 diabetic patients who participated in an earlier cross-sectional study. Patients were excluded if they were previously treated for macular edema or proliferative DR or if they had other retinopathies. Medical records were reviewed for ocular interventions including vitrectomy, intravitreal injection, and laser treatment. Need for intervention was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards. Baseline electroretinograms and fundus photographs were obtained. Two definitions of structural positive findings were as follows: 1. Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study diabetic retinopathy severity scale (ETDRS-DR) severity ≥ level 53 (ETDRS-DR+) and 2. ETDRS-DR+ or clinically significant macular edema (VTDR+). A positive function finding corresponded to a RETeval DR Score >23.5 (RETeval+). Results: For patients with VTDR+ the incidence of intervention was 19%, 31%, and 53% after 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up. In these patients, intervention incidence increased to 34%, 54%, and 74% the subsequent 1, 2, and 3 years if function was above criterion (RETeval+), whereas RETeval- results reduced the risk to 3%, 4%, and 29%, respectively, reducing risk to similar levels seen for patients with VTDR- results at baseline. Conclusions: Prediction of subsequent intervention was best when combining structural and functional information. Translational Relevance: This study demonstrates that clinical management of diabetic retinopathy is improved by adding electroretinography to fundus photographic information in assessing the risk of the need for intervention.

Constant luminance (cd·s/m2) versus constant retinal illuminance (Td·s) stimulation in flicker ERGs.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of variable pupil size on the flicker electroretinogram (ERG) between a stimulus having constant luminance and a stimulus having constant retinal illuminance (constant Troland) that compensates for pupil size. METHODS: Subjects (n = 18) were tested with 12 pairs of the stimuli. The stimulus pair consisted of the ISCEV standard constant luminance stimulus (3 cd·s/m2 with a 30 cd/m2 background) and a constant retinal illuminance stimulus (32 Td·s with a 320 Td background) selected to provide the same stimulus and background when the pupil diameter is 3.7 mm. Half the subjects were artificially dilated, and their response was measured before and during the dilation. The natural pupil group was used to assess intra- and inter-subject variability. The artificially dilated group was used to measure the flicker ERG's dependence on pupil size. RESULTS: With natural pupils, intra-subject variability was lower with the constant Troland stimulus, while inter-subject variability was similar between stimuli. During pupil dilation, the constant Troland stimulus did not have a dependence on pupil size up to 6.3 mm and had slightly larger amplitudes with longer implicit times for fully dilated pupils. For the constant luminance stimulus, waveform amplitudes varied by 22% per mm change in pupil diameter, or by 48% over the 2.2 mm diameter range measured in dilated pupil size. There was no difference in inter-subject variability between constant Troland natural pupils and the same subjects with a constant luminance stimulus when dilated (i.e., the ISCEV standard condition). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a constant Troland flicker ERG test with natural pupils may be advantageous in clinical testing. Because of its insensitivity to pupil size, constant Troland stimuli should produce smaller reference ranges, which in turn should improve the sensitivity for detection of abnormalities and for monitoring changes. In addition, the test can be administered more efficiently as it does not require artificial dilation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02466607).

A novel device for accurate and efficient testing for vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy.

AIMS: To evaluate the performance of the RETeval device, a handheld instrument using flicker electroretinography (ERG) and pupillography on undilated subjects with diabetes, to detect vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR). METHODS: Performance was measured using a cross-sectional, single armed, non-interventional, multi-site study with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study 7-standard field, stereo, color fundus photography as the gold standard. The 468 subjects were randomized to a calibration phase (80%), whose ERG and pupillary waveforms were used to formulate an equation correlating with the presence of VTDR, and a validation phase (20%), used to independently validate that equation. The primary outcome was the prevalence-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the detection of VTDR. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve was 0.86 for VTDR. With a sensitivity of 83%, the specificity was 78% and the negative predictive value was 99%. The average testing time was 2.3 min. CONCLUSIONS: With a VTDR prevalence similar to that in the U.S., the RETeval device will identify about 75% of the population as not having VTDR with 99% accuracy. The device is simple to use, does not require pupil dilation, and has a short testing time.