This pilot study examined the diagnostic role of multifocal visually evoked potentials (mfVEP) in a small number of patients with diabetes. mfVEP, mfERG, and fundus photographs of both eyes of five patients with diabetes, three with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and two without NPDR were examined. Thirteen control subjects were also examined. Eighteen zones were constructed from the 60-element mfVEP stimulus array. mfVEP implicit time (IT) and amplitude (SNR) differences were tested between subject groups. We also examined whether there was a difference in function for patches with and without retinopathy in the NPDR group. Lastly, we compared mfVEP and mfERG results in the same patients. We found significant mfVEP IT differences between controls and all patients with diabetes, controls and diabetics without retinopathy, and between controls and diabetics with retinopathy. The subject groups did not differ significantly in terms of SNR. In the retinopathy group, ITs from zones with retinopathy were significantly longer than ITs from zones without retinopathy (P = 0.016). mfERG IT was more frequently abnormal than mfVEP IT. In addition, mfERG hexagons were twice as likely to be abnormal if the corresponding mfVEP zone was abnormal (P < 0.05). mfVEP implicit times are significantly delayed in patients with diabetes even when there is no retinopathy. These cortical response results are similar, albeit considerably less abnormal, than those previously reported for retinal (mfERG) responses in patients with diabetes. A correlation exists between the location of abnormal mfERG hexagons and abnormal mfVEP zones.

Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 (n = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 (n = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z-scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z-scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z-score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z-scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z-scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z-scores based on normative data.