SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Diagnostic accuracy of isolated-check visual evoked potentials for glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual Mechanisms of Impaired Visual Processing in Glaucoma: Insights From Resting-State and Task-Related EEG.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Visual Pathways Involvement in Friedreich's Ataxia Patients Without Macular Impairment.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe isolated-check visual evoked potential (ic-VEP) is an advanced electrophysiological technique that selectively evaluates the magnocellular pathway, enabling precise assessment of optic nerve damage and currently serving as a diagnostic tool for glaucoma. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic performance of ic-VEP in glaucoma detection.
methodsThe study protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Registration ID: CRD42025633065) prior to data extraction. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane databases was conducted from inception to January 1, 2025. Studies evaluating ic-VEP for glaucoma diagnosis were included, with confirmed cases defined by standard automated perimetry (SAP). Eligible studies underwent methodological quality was appraised using the QUADAS-2 tool and Review Manager 5.3. Meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-Disc 1.4 and Stata 13.0 based on the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to derive pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC). Publication bias was assessed using Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test and trim-and-fill analysis. Heterogeneity was quantified via the I
resultsTen studies comprising 434 patients with glaucoma and 321 healthy controls met the inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for glaucoma diagnosis were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.80-0.98), with an AUC 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89). The DOR was 44.96 (95% CI: 15.25-132.51) and the lambda value was 3.70 (95% CI: 2.73-4.66). Both Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test (p = 0.30) and trim-and-fill analysis (imputed studies = 4) demonstrated no substantial publication bias. Meta-regression identified type of device (Neucodia vs. EvokeDx) and type of glaucoma (early POAG vs. others) as contributors to heterogeneity.
conclusionsDespite limited included studies and sample sizes, ic-VEP exhibits high diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma, offering advantages such as objectivity, non-invasiveness, and operational simplicity. These findings support its integration into clinical workflows for glaucoma screening and diagnosis.
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.