Hotelbuchung
Hotel Registration
Grußwort
Welcome address
Beteiligte Gesellschaften
Societies involved
DOG Information
DOG Information
Eröffnung des Kongresses
Opening Ceremony
Preise
Awards
Ablauf der Tagung 2003
General overview of congress
Lageplan der Räumlichkeiten
Map of Congress Center
Wissenschaftliche Themen
Scientific topics
Symposien
Symposia
Wissenschaftliches Programm
Scientific program
Posterpräsentationen
Poster Presentation
Kurse
Courses
Begleitende Veranstaltungen
Accompanying program
Arbeitssitzungen
Working sessions
Rahmenprogramm
Social program
Allgemeine Informationen
General Information
Autorenindex
Index of Authors
Industrieaussteller
Commercial exhibitors
Sponsoren
Sponsors
Impressum
DOG Homepage
Abstract
Abstract
Multifocal VEP Using "VEP-Finder" and "Double Bagging" in Glaucoma Diagnosis
Lindenberg T.1, Peters A.2, Horn F. K.1, Lausen B.2, Korth M.1
1Augenklinik mit Poliklinik, 2Institut für Medizininformatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg
Purpose: The diagnostic value of multifocal VEP in glaucoma research is still under debate. In several previous studies it is considered as a fully developed tool for clinical applications, while, according to other studies, low specificity, poor signal-to-noise-ratio and interindividual variabilities still inhibit its clinical use. Aim of the present study was to test the mf VEP with the RETIscan system using a cross correlation procedure ("VEP finder") and a new statistical evaluation method ("double-bagging").
Method: We examined 38 patients with glaucomatous visual field losses and 27 normal subjects monocularly, using 4 occipital goldcup-electrodes (cross layout, 4 channels bipolar, 8 cumulative measurements, 77 s each) for VEP recording and a CRT Monitor (chequerboard pattern reversal, 60 segments in dartboard-layout) for stimulation. The data of the 60 segments were cross-correlated by the RETIscan with a empirically based VEP norm, combined in 16 sectors and evaluated via double-bagging and ROC analysis.
Results: Based on a specificity of 71% the sensitivity reached 68% with the conventional statistical method (ROC analysis) and 75% with the double-bagging, if both methods were applied to the cross