Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments

Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Documenta ophthalmologica 2009-08, Vol.119 (1), p.67-78, Article 67
Hauptverfasser: Harrison, Wendy W., Bearse, Marcus A., Ng, Jason S., Barez, Shirin, Schneck, Marilyn E., Adams, Anthony J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 78
container_issue 1
container_start_page 67
container_title Documenta ophthalmologica
container_volume 119
creator Harrison, Wendy W.
Bearse, Marcus A.
Ng, Jason S.
Barez, Shirin
Schneck, Marilyn E.
Adams, Anthony J.
description Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 ( n  = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 ( n  = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z -scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z -scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z -score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z -scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z -scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z -scores based on normative data.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2700238</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67411149</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-7d7943270d83f1ed8f31f6e93fc8a11c26889a080ea93f348537911e9fc1c9ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kV1LXDEQhoO06Lr6A7yRQ6HenTaTZPNxU5DF2oJQEL0O2ZyJRs7HNjnHor--WXbxo9CrQOaZeed9h5AToF-AUvU1A5Wc15Sa2oCC-nmPzGCheM0kYx_IjFJgtRBaHpDDnB9oARXofXIAhjO2MGpG6DWu09BMPq5iG8enagjVeI9VFy6uL6sVjn8Q-yr2eUxTh_2Yj8jH4NqMx7t3Tm6_X9wsf9RXvy5_Ls-vai-MGmvVKCM4U7TRPAA2OnAIEg0PXjsAz6TWxlFN0ZU_LvSCKwOAJnjwJgQ-J9-2c9fTqsPGF-3kWrtOsXPpyQ4u2veVPt7bu-HRFk3KuC4DznYD0vB7wjzaLmaPbet6HKZspRIAIEwBP_0DPgxT6os5y0AIA7KkPCewhXwack4YXjYBajfHsNtj2JKx3RzDPpee07cWXjt26Rfg8w5w2bs2JNf7mF84BlIauthYYVsul1J_h-l1w_-r_wVB7KHR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214491606</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Harrison, Wendy W. ; Bearse, Marcus A. ; Ng, Jason S. ; Barez, Shirin ; Schneck, Marilyn E. ; Adams, Anthony J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Wendy W. ; Bearse, Marcus A. ; Ng, Jason S. ; Barez, Shirin ; Schneck, Marilyn E. ; Adams, Anthony J.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 ( n  = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 ( n  = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z -scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z -scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z -score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z -scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z -scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z -scores based on normative data.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-4486</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2622</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19322597</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DOOPAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Adult ; Amplifiers, Electronic ; Biological and medical sciences ; Diabetes Mellitus - physiopathology ; Electroretinography - instrumentation ; Electroretinography - methods ; Humans ; Longitudinal Studies ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Ophthalmology ; Original ; Original Research Article ; Reaction Time ; Reference Values ; Reproducibility of Results ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Documenta ophthalmologica, 2009-08, Vol.119 (1), p.67-78, Article 67</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2009</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-7d7943270d83f1ed8f31f6e93fc8a11c26889a080ea93f348537911e9fc1c9ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-7d7943270d83f1ed8f31f6e93fc8a11c26889a080ea93f348537911e9fc1c9ff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,882,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21669058$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19322597$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Wendy W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bearse, Marcus A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barez, Shirin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneck, Marilyn E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Anthony J.</creatorcontrib><title>Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments</title><title>Documenta ophthalmologica</title><addtitle>Doc Ophthalmol</addtitle><addtitle>Doc Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 ( n  = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 ( n  = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z -scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z -scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z -score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z -scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z -scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z -scores based on normative data.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Amplifiers, Electronic</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus - physiopathology</subject><subject>Electroretinography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Electroretinography - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Research Article</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Reference Values</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0012-4486</issn><issn>1573-2622</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kV1LXDEQhoO06Lr6A7yRQ6HenTaTZPNxU5DF2oJQEL0O2ZyJRs7HNjnHor--WXbxo9CrQOaZeed9h5AToF-AUvU1A5Wc15Sa2oCC-nmPzGCheM0kYx_IjFJgtRBaHpDDnB9oARXofXIAhjO2MGpG6DWu09BMPq5iG8enagjVeI9VFy6uL6sVjn8Q-yr2eUxTh_2Yj8jH4NqMx7t3Tm6_X9wsf9RXvy5_Ls-vai-MGmvVKCM4U7TRPAA2OnAIEg0PXjsAz6TWxlFN0ZU_LvSCKwOAJnjwJgQ-J9-2c9fTqsPGF-3kWrtOsXPpyQ4u2veVPt7bu-HRFk3KuC4DznYD0vB7wjzaLmaPbet6HKZspRIAIEwBP_0DPgxT6os5y0AIA7KkPCewhXwack4YXjYBajfHsNtj2JKx3RzDPpee07cWXjt26Rfg8w5w2bs2JNf7mF84BlIauthYYVsul1J_h-l1w_-r_wVB7KHR</recordid><startdate>20090801</startdate><enddate>20090801</enddate><creator>Harrison, Wendy W.</creator><creator>Bearse, Marcus A.</creator><creator>Ng, Jason S.</creator><creator>Barez, Shirin</creator><creator>Schneck, Marilyn E.</creator><creator>Adams, Anthony J.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090801</creationdate><title>Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments</title><author>Harrison, Wendy W. ; Bearse, Marcus A. ; Ng, Jason S. ; Barez, Shirin ; Schneck, Marilyn E. ; Adams, Anthony J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-7d7943270d83f1ed8f31f6e93fc8a11c26889a080ea93f348537911e9fc1c9ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Amplifiers, Electronic</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus - physiopathology</topic><topic>Electroretinography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Electroretinography - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Research Article</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Reference Values</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Wendy W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bearse, Marcus A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barez, Shirin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneck, Marilyn E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Anthony J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Documenta ophthalmologica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrison, Wendy W.</au><au>Bearse, Marcus A.</au><au>Ng, Jason S.</au><au>Barez, Shirin</au><au>Schneck, Marilyn E.</au><au>Adams, Anthony J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments</atitle><jtitle>Documenta ophthalmologica</jtitle><stitle>Doc Ophthalmol</stitle><addtitle>Doc Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2009-08-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>67</spage><epage>78</epage><pages>67-78</pages><artnum>67</artnum><issn>0012-4486</issn><eissn>1573-2622</eissn><coden>DOOPAA</coden><abstract>Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 ( n  = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 ( n  = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z -scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z -scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z -score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z -scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z -scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z -scores based on normative data.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>19322597</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-4486
ispartof Documenta ophthalmologica, 2009-08, Vol.119 (1), p.67-78, Article 67
issn 0012-4486
1573-2622
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2700238
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Adult
Amplifiers, Electronic
Biological and medical sciences
Diabetes Mellitus - physiopathology
Electroretinography - instrumentation
Electroretinography - methods
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Medical sciences
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Ophthalmology
Original
Original Research Article
Reaction Time
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Time Factors
title Reproducibility of the mfERG between instruments
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T12%3A16%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reproducibility%20of%20the%20mfERG%20between%20instruments&rft.jtitle=Documenta%20ophthalmologica&rft.au=Harrison,%20Wendy%20W.&rft.date=2009-08-01&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=67&rft.epage=78&rft.pages=67-78&rft.artnum=67&rft.issn=0012-4486&rft.eissn=1573-2622&rft.coden=DOOPAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10633-009-9171-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E67411149%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214491606&rft_id=info:pmid/19322597&rfr_iscdi=true