June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Sweep Visual Evoked Potentials In Patients With Suspected Functional Visual Acuity Loss
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gabrielle Rachelle Bonhomme
    Ophthalmology, UPMC Eye Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Salwa AbdelAziz
    Ophthalmology, UPMC Eye Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Tarek A Shazly
    Ophthalmology, UPMC Eye Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Valeria L N Fu
    Ophthalmology, UPMC Eye Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Gabrielle Bonhomme, None; Salwa AbdelAziz, None; Tarek Shazly, None; Valeria Fu, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 492. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Gabrielle Rachelle Bonhomme, Salwa AbdelAziz, Tarek A Shazly, Valeria L N Fu; Sweep Visual Evoked Potentials In Patients With Suspected Functional Visual Acuity Loss. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):492.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: Early and accurate identification of organic vision loss is very important in patients with suspected functional visual loss (FVL). Visual evoked potential (VEP) offers a means of objectively evaluating visual function, and may assist with early and accurate diagnosis. This study's aim is to assess the clinical usability of the sweep VEP in patients with suspected FVL.

Methods: A retrospective chart-review was conducted. All adult patients with unexplained vision loss evaluated between August 12th of 2013 and December 5th of 2014 with inconsistencies on examination suggestive of FVL were included. All patients underwent both pattern VEP (PVEP) and sweep VEP(SVEP) testing as part of their evaluation. Visual acuity(VA) was converted to decimal notation. VEP results were interpreted by an experienced electro-physiologist, masked from the patient clinical findings. Abnormal PVEP was defined by abnormal P-100 latency and/or amplitude, while SVEP values of <0.5 were considered abnormal. Two-sample t-test was used to compare the findings in the normal and abnormal PVEP groups.

Results: Twenty four patients were included (13 women and 11 men) with mean age of 41 years +/- 14.2 (range, 19-61 years of age). Visual acuity at presentation was 0.35+/-0.32 in each eye. Color vision measured 5.4+/-5.7 out of 13 Ishihara plates in each eye. Pattern VEP was normal (Group A) in 29 eyes (both eyes of 13 patients and one eye of 3 patients) and abnormal (Group B) in 7 eyes (both eyes of 2 patients and one eye of 3 patients). PVEP was Inconsistent or unobtainable due to lack of patient co-operation in 12 eyes (6 patients). SVEP estimated acuity in group A was 0.84 +/-0.21 compared to 0.47+/-0.11 in group B (p=0.00013). In Group A, the SVEP acuity was 0.26+/-0.17 better than the presenting acuity, while in Group B, the SVEP acuity was 0.37+/-0.51 better than the presenting acuity (p=0.59). Visual acuity retested using polarizing glasses was only 0.03+/-0.07 better than the presenting VA in Group A compared to 0.19+/-0.34 in Group B (p=0.014). SVEP was able to detect organic vision loss with sensitivity of 71.4% and 100% sensitivity with a positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 93.5%.

Conclusions: Sweep VEP is both a sensitive and specific quantitative and non-invasive test that can be used in evaluation of suspected FVL.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.