Detailed Information

Cited 7 time in webofscience Cited 9 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Low Contrast Visual Acuity Might Help to Detect Previous Optic Neuritisopen access

Authors
Park, Soo-HyunPark, Choul YongShin, Young JooJeong, Kyoung SookKim, Nam-Hee
Issue Date
22-Dec-2020
Publisher
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
Keywords
optic neuritis; visual acuity; low contrast visual acuity; neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder; multiple sclerosis
Citation
FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, v.11
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
Volume
11
URI
https://scholarworks.dongguk.edu/handle/sw.dongguk/5689
DOI
10.3389/fneur.2020.602193
ISSN
1664-2295
Abstract
Optic neuritis (ON) has been considered to be an important factor in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), making ON detection increasingly critical for early diagnosis. Furthermore, subclinical ONs presenting no distinct decrease in visual acuity can be missed. Low contrast visual acuity (LC-VA) is known to be able to capture visual loss not seen in conventional high-contrast visual acuity (HC-VA) in MS. Therefore, to increase the sensitivity of ON detection, we investigated the advantage of LC-VA over conventional HC-VA. One hundred and eight patients with demyelinating disease (35 MS, 73 NMOSD) with ON at least 3 months prior and 35 controls underwent neuro-ophthalmic evaluation, including best-corrected conventional high contrast visual acuity (HC-VA) and 2.5% and 1.25% low contrast visual acuity (LC-VA). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the area under the curve (AUC) of various visual functions were used to determine the most relevant visual function test for the detection of optic nerve involvement. Additionally, the optimal cutoff point was obtained from the Youden index (J-index) as the points with the best sensitivity-specificity balance. When distinguishing ON from non-ON, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was highest for the 2.5% LC-VA (0.835, P < 0.001; sensitivity 71.5%, specificity 88.6%), while it was 0.710 (P < 0.001) for the HC-VA and 0.770 (P < 0.001) for the 1.25% LC-VA. In discriminating between controls and ON, the AUC was also highest for the 2.5% LC-VA 0.754 (P < 0.001; sensitivity 71.5%, specificity 78.5%), while it was 0.719 (P < 0.001) for HC-VA and 0.688 (P < 0.001) for 1.25% LC-VA. In eyes with a history of ON (n = 137), the HC-VA and 2.5% LC-VA were abnormal in 64.2 and 71.5%, respectively (P < 0.001), with their combination detecting abnormalities in approximately 85.4% (P < 0.001). The 2.5% LC-VA was superior to HC-VA in detecting ON when distinguishing ON from non-ON or control. The 2.5% LC-VA might be a useful, feasible, and rapid method to detect ON. Furthermore, combining 2.5% LC-VA with conventional HC-VA would be better for detecting optic nerve involvements.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
Graduate School > Department of Medicine > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Kim, Nam Hee photo

Kim, Nam Hee
Graduate School (Department of Medicine)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE