title: Photopic negative response of full-field electroretinography in patients with different stages of glaucomatous optic neuropathy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate photopic negative response (PhNR) discrimination ability between healthy and glaucomatous patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ninety eyes of 50 patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and 45 eyes of 23 healthy age- and sex-matched controls were investigated. Based on European Glaucoma Society criteria, POAG patients were divided into three groups: early, moderate and advanced glaucoma. Following measurements were analysed: mean defect (MD) from Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer, SITA standard 24-2 white on white perimetry; nerve fibre index (NFI) obtained from scanning laser polarimetry; and GDx and PhNR amplitude and PhNR/b-wave ratio. PhNR was elicited by red stimuli with flash strength of 1.6 cd s/m(2) on blue background of 25 cd/m(2). Correlations between retinal ganglion cells function (PhNR), retinal sensitivity (MD) and structure (NFI) were calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of PhNR parameters were calculated with standard formulas. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine optimal cut-off values. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare the ROC curves results between PhNR amplitude and ratio.
  
  
  RESULTS
  PhNR amplitude and ratio were significantly reduced in early, moderate and advanced glaucoma groups compared to controls. The sensitivity and specificity to detect glaucoma in early POAG were equal to 53.3 and 90.0% for PhNR amplitude and 60.0 and 70.0% for PhNR ratio; in moderate POAG 63.3 and 80.0% for PhNR amplitude and 60.0 and 86.7% for PhNR ratio; and in advanced POAG 76.6 and 80.0% for PhNR amplitude, 90.0 and 73.3% for PhNR ratio. There were no significant differences between AUC for PhNR amplitude (0.76-0.86) and PhNR ratio (0.78-0.86), p > 0.05. PhNR amplitudes and ratios correlated significantly with MD measured by SAP and NFI obtained from GDx (p < 0.05). PhNR amplitude significantly decreases with advancement of visual field defects in glaucoma patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  PhNR reveals dysfunction of RGCs in early, moderate and advanced stage of POAG. PhNR has good discrimination ability in detecting glaucomatous patients. PhNR might be a useful test in glaucoma diagnosis.
authors.affiliation: Clinic of Ophthalmology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstańców Wlkp. Street 72, Szczecin, Poland. martakiszkielis@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Marta
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kirkiewicz
authors.affiliation: Clinic of Ophthalmology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstańców Wlkp. Street 72, Szczecin, Poland.
authors.forename: Wojciech
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Lubiński
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
authors.forename: Krzysztof
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Penkala
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D019540:Area Under Curve; D055253:Color Vision; D004596:Electroretinography / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005902:Glaucoma, Open-Angle / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009412:Nerve Fibers / Q000473:pathology; D009901:Optic Nerve Diseases / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D012372:ROC Curve; D012165:Retinal Ganglion Cells / Q000473:pathology; D057109:Scanning Laser Polarimetry; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000379:methods; D014794:Visual Fields / Q000502:physiology
keywords: Glaucoma; Photopic negative response; Scanning laser polarimetry
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Mar;54(3):1913-9
references.pmid: 23385794
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Mar;41(3):741-8
references.pmid: 10711689
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 May;42(6):1266-72
references.pmid: 11328738
references.citation: J Glaucoma. 2008 Dec;17(8):639-46
references.pmid: 19092459
references.citation: Open Ophthalmol J. 2015 May 15;9:68-77
references.pmid: 26069519
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 Feb;42(2):514-22
references.pmid: 11157891
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun;122(6):827-37
references.pmid: 15197057
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 May;40(6):1124-36
references.pmid: 10235545
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Dec;116(12):1583-9
references.pmid: 9869785
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Jul;41(8):2205-11
references.pmid: 10892864
references.citation: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006 Jun;244(6):689-95
references.pmid: 16292656
references.citation: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006 Jan;244(1):58-68
references.pmid: 16044326
references.citation: J Ophthalmol. 2011;2011:null
references.pmid: 20936059
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Sep;45(9):3152-60
references.pmid: 15326134
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 May;49(5):2201-7
references.pmid: 18436853
references.citation: Doc Ophthalmol. 2009 Jun;118(3):167-77
references.pmid: 18932006
references.citation: ISRN Ophthalmol. 2013 Feb 17;2013:182021
references.pmid: 24558598
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Feb;54(2):1182-91
references.pmid: 23307968
references.citation: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2015 Jan-Feb;4(1):32-9
references.pmid: 26068611
references.citation: Doc Ophthalmol. 2001 Jul;103(1):1-12
references.pmid: 11678156
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Feb;51(2):1216-22
references.pmid: 19850843
references.citation: J Glaucoma. 2016 Jun;25(6):539-46
references.pmid: 26091178
references.citation: Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Nov;82(11):887-8
references.pmid: 15640929
references.citation: Am J Ophthalmol. 1989 May 15;107(5):453-64
references.pmid: 2712129
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Oct;45(10):3827-37
references.pmid: 15452095
references.citation: Br J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jan;86(1):70-4
references.pmid: 11801507