Skip to main content

Table 7 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of VEP amplitude in predicting visual function outcomesa

From: Intraoperative monitoring of visual evoked potentials in patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma: a systematic review

Study True Positiveb
(TP)
False Positivec
(FP)
True Negatived (TN) False Negativee
(FN)
Sensitivityf
(Sn)
Specificityg
(Sp)
Positive Predictive Valueh (PPV) Negative Predictive Valuei (NPV)
Feng et al. (2019) [18] 1 1 37 3 25% 97% 50% 93%
Qaio et al. (2019) [19] - - - - - - - -
Toyama et al. (2018) [20] 0 6 33 0 n/a 85% n/a 100%
Nishimura et al. (2018) [21] 0 8 150 0 n/a 95% n/a 100%
Kurozumi et al. (2017) [22] - - - - - - - -
Luo et al.k (2015)[23] 0 2 54 6 n/a 96% n/a 90%
Kamio et al. (2014) [7] 1 0 27 0 100% 100% 100% 100%
Houlden et al. (2014) [9] - - - - - - - -
Chung et al.j (2012) [24] - - - - - - - -
Sasaki et al.k (2010) [6] 14 8 171 2 88% 96% 64% 99%
Chacko et al. (1996) [25] 0 0 44 0 n/a 100% n/a 100%
  1. a Where possible, visual field outcomes only were used to predict visual function outcomes. In the studies by Nishimura et al., Luo et al., Sasaki et al. and Kurozumi et al. this was not possible therefore combined visual acuity/field data has been used. bTP = a permanent decrease in VEP amplitude and new post-operative visual deficit. cFP = a permanent decrease in VEP amplitude but no new post-operative visual deficit. dTN = no permanent decrease in VEP amplitude and no new post-operative visual deficit. eFN = no permanent decrease in VEP amplitude but new post-operative visual deficit. fSn = TP/ (TP + FN) gSp = TN (TN + FP) hPPV = TP / (TP + FP)i NPV = TN/ (TN + FN) jUnable to derive figures for Chung et al. as they combined transient and permanent VEP amplitude loss in their results. kIt was not possible to separate the data of the patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery from other approaches in these studies; figures demonstrated are for all approaches