...
首页> 外文期刊>Ophthalmology >Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual acuity in malingering.
【24h】

Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual acuity in malingering.

机译:模式视觉诱发电位评估了患病者的视敏度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of pattern visual evoked potential (PVEP) testing with 5 consecutive check-size patterns in presumably malingering draftees. DESIGN: Case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: The study group included 111 military conscripts (124 eyes) whose visual abnormalities could not be explained by the findings of ophthalmologic, neurological, and psychiatric examinations. The control group was comprised of 111 age- and gender-matched healthy subjects without ocular problems, except with refraction. METHODS: The latency and amplitude of P100 for 5 consecutive patterns (2 degrees, 1 degrees, 30', 15', and 7') corresponding to visual acuities (VAs) of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0, respectively, were measured in both groups. Pattern VEP-estimated VA (PVEP-VA) was determined by the VA corresponding to the smallest check size, with normal interocular variance in unilateral cases and normative data for P100 latency and amplitude values in bilateral cases. The best-performed VA was determined with a battery of clinical tests for malingering (VA obtained after simulation examination techniques [VA(aset)]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Comparison of PVEP-VA to VA(aset). RESULTS: In pure malingerers, PVEP-VA was 1.0 (normal recordings in all patterns) for all eyes (20 eyes), and all subjects were proven to be malingerers (true positives). Of the exaggerators, 81 (77.8%) with an underlying ophthalmic disorder had a +/-1-Snellen line discrepancy between PVEP-VA and VA(aset). Pattern VEP-estimated VA was well correlated with VA(aset) (r = 0.670). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of PVEP in functional visual loss were found to be 97.2%, 62.5%, 94.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pattern VEP testing with 5 consecutive check-size patterns may define VA objectively, especially in pure malingers; however, PVEP results should be evaluated in the context of the clinical examination, which remains the gold standard method to reveal the malingering.
机译:目的:确定在可能是犯罪的吃水人员中使用5个连续的检查尺寸图案进行图案视觉诱发电位(PVEP)测试的价值。设计:病例对照研究。参加者:研究组包括111名军人(124眼),他们的视力异常无法通过眼科,神经科和精神科检查的发现来解释。对照组由111名年龄和性别相匹配的健康受试者组成,除了屈光以外,没有眼部问题。方法:P100的5个连续模式(2度,1度,30',15'和7')的潜伏期和幅度分别对应于0.1、0.2、0.4、0.7和1.0的视敏度(VA),两组均进行了测量。通过对应于最小检查尺寸的VA来确定模式VEP估计的VA(PVEP-VA),在单侧病例中眼球方差正常,在双侧病例中P100潜伏期和振幅值具有规范数据。表现最佳的VA是通过一系列临床检查来确定的,其病态严重(通过模拟检查技术[VA(aset)]获得的VA)。主要观察指标:PVEP-VA与VA(set)的比较。结果:在纯恶意捕捞者中,所有眼睛(20眼)的PVEP-VA为1.0(所有模式的正常记录),并且所有受试者均被证明是恶意捕捞者(真阳性)。在夸张者中,有81名(77.8%)患有潜在的眼科疾病,在PVEP-VA和VA(set)之间存在+/- 1-Snellen线差异。模式VEP估计的VA与VA(资产)高度相关(r = 0.670)。发现功能性视力丧失的PVEP的敏感性,特异性和阳性和阴性预测值分别为97.2%,62.5%,94.5%和76.9%。结论:模式VEP测试具有5个连续的检查大小的模式可以客观地定义VA,尤其是在纯恶意软件中。但是,PVEP结果应在临床检查的范围内进行评估,这仍然是揭示恶意行为的金标准方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号