N/A
N=136
How Accurately Does the Diopsys Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) Vision Testing System Detect Glaucoma?
Glaucoma Diagnosis
Bottom Line
View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02622178 ↗Enrolled (actual)
136
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Nov 2018
Primary outcome: Primary: Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) — 6.7; 7.1; 4.1 microvolts (uV) (amplitude)
Study Design & Population
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- N/A
- Interventions
- Optical Coherence Tomography (Diagnostic_test); Visual evoked potential (Diagnostic_test)
- Age
- Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
- Sex
- All
- Sponsor
- Wills Eye
- Primary completion
- Dec 2013
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) |
6.7; 7.1; 4.1 | — |
| SECONDARY Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness |
95.1; 87.5; 71.2 | — |
Summary
Evaluate sensitivity and specificity of NOVA-DN visually evoked potentials (VEP) protocol and new software method (Corda) for glaucoma detection using optical coherence tomography (OCT) images to differentiate between normal subjects and glaucoma suspects.
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Group 1: Healthy Subjects
- intraocular pressure less than 22 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)
- normal appearing optic discs and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL)
- normal optical coherence tomography (OCT) RNFL thickness
- normal visual field (VF) results in both eyes.
Group 2: Glaucoma Suspects
- glaucomatous appearance of optic discs and/or RNFL in at least one eye
- normal OCT
- normal VF results in both eyes.
Group3: Glaucoma Patients
- Glaucomatous optic disc appearance (cup to disc ratio, rim thinning or RNFL defects)
- Repeatable intraocular pressure (IOP) of 23 mmHg or more, in at least one eye
- Repeatable abnormal VF tests
Exclusion Criteria
- inability to perform reliable VF or OCT
- visual acuity worse than 20/40
- refractive error greater than +/-5.00 diopters sphere, greater than +/- 3.00 diopers cylinder
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02622178). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.