ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022
Contribution of objectively measured grating acuity by sweep visually evoked potentials to the diagnosis of unexplained visual loss.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of objective measures for ocular malingering: A systematic review.Journal of optometry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the diagnostic contribution of grating visual acuity (GVA) measured by sweep pattern-reversal visually evoked potentials (SPRVEP) in unexplained visual loss (UVL).
methodsThis case-control study included adult patients under suspicion of UVL referred to SPRVEP and transient pattern-reversal visually evoked potentials (TPRVEP) testing. Optotype visual acuity (OVA) was measured by ETDRS 4-meter chart and GVA by SPRVEP. UVL patients were assigned into three distinctive categories, according to the presence of ocular disease, motivation, and electrophysiological evaluation, as follows: exaggerators, malingerers, and psychogenic. Healthy controls and patients with organic visual loss were also tested. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of GVA and TPRVEP parameters.
resultsA total of 76 patients with UVL were analyzed: 60 (79.0%) exaggerators, 11 (14.4%) malingerers, and 5 (6.6%) psychogenic. Controls were 49 subjects evaluated for TPRVEP and 28 subjects for SPRVEP. There were 13 patients with organic visual loss enrolled. Mean difference between OVA and GVA was 1.19±0.67 (median=0.84; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.34) in UVL and 0.14 ±0.09 (median= 0.14; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.20) in organic visual loss. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of GVA to distinguish UVL from healthy controls was 0.998 with a cutoff of 0.09 logMAR showing specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 96.0%.
conclusionsGVA measured by SPRVEP had good diagnostic validity to discriminate patients with unexplained visual loss from healthy controls and patients with organic visual loss, demonstrating its contribution to the diagnosis of this condition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.