The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of the handheld RETeval ERG system with a routine ERG system in healthy adults and in paediatric patients

Comparison of the handheld RETeval ERG system with a routine ERG system in healthy adults and in paediatric patients
Comparison of the handheld RETeval ERG system with a routine ERG system in healthy adults and in paediatric patients
Background: Electroretinograms (ERG) are necessary for the evaluation of retinal function, however testing children is challenging and only performed at a few specialised centres. The handheld RETeval ERG instrument could prove a valuable tool for clinicians in assessing retinal function. This study evaluates this device using an ISCEV approved modified paediatric protocol and compares it to standard methods using a photic stimulator.

Subjects and Method: Cone and rod ERGs were recorded using a standard photic stimulator (Grass) and the RETeval device. Both methods involve using skin electrodes, without mydriasis and under dark and light conditions. Two groups of participants were recruited: 44 healthy adult subjects (mean age =39 years) and 37 paediatric patients (mean=5 years). Three of the paediatric patients were not sufficiently compliant to undertake the RETeval recording.

Results: Adult ERG reference range data is presented for the RETeval and compared to the standard system. There is lack of absolute agreement in the measurements between the two devices, highlighting the need for device-specific reference data. In the paediatric group there is a high level of diagnostic agreement between both systems (Cohen’s Kappa k = 0.80). The relative sensitivity and specificity of the RETeval was 1.0 and 0.91. Qualitative patient and user feedback is discussed.

Conclusions: ERGs are similar between the two methodologies. This study demonstrates that the RETeval device is a useful tool for assessing retinal function in children. Importantly, it is quick, relatively easy to use and can potentially reduce the burden and costs of paediatric electrodiagnostic assessments.

A Correction was issued to figure 1 of this paper shortly after publication due to typographical error. The correction can be accessed at the original paper, the additional links on this record and the correction pdf. Pease use figure 1 in the correction not the Accepted Manuscript.
0950-222X
Carter, Perry
b330105f-f4ee-4cbf-88bb-d2c97b9aa126
Gordon-Reid, Arabella
f1bf8e64-d0ee-422a-8082-07b78c24ffc5
Shawkat, Fatima
10bffac1-9300-43f6-832e-11c0f1feca36
Self, Jay E.
0f6efc58-ae24-4667-b8d6-6fafa849e389
Carter, Perry
b330105f-f4ee-4cbf-88bb-d2c97b9aa126
Gordon-Reid, Arabella
f1bf8e64-d0ee-422a-8082-07b78c24ffc5
Shawkat, Fatima
10bffac1-9300-43f6-832e-11c0f1feca36
Self, Jay E.
0f6efc58-ae24-4667-b8d6-6fafa849e389

Carter, Perry, Gordon-Reid, Arabella, Shawkat, Fatima and Self, Jay E. (2021) Comparison of the handheld RETeval ERG system with a routine ERG system in healthy adults and in paediatric patients. Eye, 35. (doi:10.1038/s41433-020-01221-2).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Electroretinograms (ERG) are necessary for the evaluation of retinal function, however testing children is challenging and only performed at a few specialised centres. The handheld RETeval ERG instrument could prove a valuable tool for clinicians in assessing retinal function. This study evaluates this device using an ISCEV approved modified paediatric protocol and compares it to standard methods using a photic stimulator.

Subjects and Method: Cone and rod ERGs were recorded using a standard photic stimulator (Grass) and the RETeval device. Both methods involve using skin electrodes, without mydriasis and under dark and light conditions. Two groups of participants were recruited: 44 healthy adult subjects (mean age =39 years) and 37 paediatric patients (mean=5 years). Three of the paediatric patients were not sufficiently compliant to undertake the RETeval recording.

Results: Adult ERG reference range data is presented for the RETeval and compared to the standard system. There is lack of absolute agreement in the measurements between the two devices, highlighting the need for device-specific reference data. In the paediatric group there is a high level of diagnostic agreement between both systems (Cohen’s Kappa k = 0.80). The relative sensitivity and specificity of the RETeval was 1.0 and 0.91. Qualitative patient and user feedback is discussed.

Conclusions: ERGs are similar between the two methodologies. This study demonstrates that the RETeval device is a useful tool for assessing retinal function in children. Importantly, it is quick, relatively easy to use and can potentially reduce the burden and costs of paediatric electrodiagnostic assessments.

A Correction was issued to figure 1 of this paper shortly after publication due to typographical error. The correction can be accessed at the original paper, the additional links on this record and the correction pdf. Pease use figure 1 in the correction not the Accepted Manuscript.

Text
Final accepted manuscript - Accepted Manuscript
Download (49kB)
Text
Corrected figure - Version of Record
Download (872kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 6 October 2020
e-pub ahead of print date: 19 October 2020
Published date: 2021

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 444621
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/444621
ISSN: 0950-222X
PURE UUID: 21003143-e849-4f7f-8455-5e3595f2f946
ORCID for Jay E. Self: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1030-9963

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Oct 2020 19:56
Last modified: 28 Apr 2022 06:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Perry Carter
Author: Arabella Gordon-Reid
Author: Fatima Shawkat
Author: Jay E. Self ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×