ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2023
Evaluation of Agreement Between Sweep Visual Evoked Potential Testing and Subjective Visual Acuity.
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2023. 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.
- Beyond the snellen chart: exploring the clinical potential of sweep visual evoked potentials for visual acuity measurement.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement of visual acuity (VA) obtained with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) method with the VA obtained with the Snellen chart. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of age and gender on agreement. Materials and Methods: Best corrected VAs of subjects were recorded with the Snellen chart, and sVEP testing was performed according to the recommendations of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV). Snellen VAs and sVEP measurements were analyzed using logMAR conversion for statistical analysis. Agreement was evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis. Results: The study included 49 subjects with a mean age of 53.5±17.3 years (range: 19-75 years) and mean Snellen VA of 0.31±0.32 logMAR (range: 1.3-0.0 logMAR). In the Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences between the VA and sVEP measurements (VA-sVEP) were significantly different and outside the limits of agreement (p=0.035). A significant proportional bias (p=0.0007) was found in the regression analysis performed between VA-sVEP and the mean VA. According to the Bland-Altman analysis of sex subgroups, there was a significant difference between VA and sVEP measurements in female subjects (p=0.006). The difference between VA and sVEP measurement increased significantly with older age (R Conclusion: In conclusion, sVEP measurements and VAs did not show statistical agreement. Cranial anatomy and endocrine differences of the subjects may affect their sVEP measurements. The difference between the methods varies according to VA level. Directly using sVEP results instead of VA would not be appropriate.
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.