Table 4.
Agreement of Evidence of Rod Function by DAVF Versus Other Modalities (Stratified by Clinical Diagnosis and Age Group); All (N = 49)
| Evidence of Rod Function Other Modalities | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FST White Stimulus† | FST Blue Stimulus‡ | ERG Rod B-Wave§ | |||||||
| DAVF* | No N (%) | Yes N (%) | κ (95% CI) || | No N (%) | Yes N (%) | κ (95% CI) || | No N (%) | Yes N (%) | κ (95% CI)|| |
| All | |||||||||
| No | 10 (22%) | 0 (0%) | 0.38 | 5 (11%) | 5 (11%) | 0.40 | 10 (20%) | 1 (2%) | 0.16 |
| Yes | 15 (33%) | 21 (46%) | (0.18, 0.58) | 4 (9%) | 32 (70%) | (0.08, 0.72) | 24 (49%) | 14 (29%) | (0.005, 0.31) |
| <40 years | |||||||||
| No | 5 (19%) | 0 (0%) | 0.31 | 2 (7%) | 3 (11%) | 0.26 | 4 (14%) | 1 (4%) | 0.03 |
| Yes | 10 (37%) | 12 (44%) | (0.06, 0.55) | 3 (11%) | 19 (70%) | (−0.18, 0.71) | 17 (61%) | 6 (21%) | (−0.15, 0.20) |
| ≥40 years | |||||||||
| No | 5 (26%) | 0 (0%) | 0.49 | 3 (16%) | 2 (11%) | 0.56 | 6 (29%) | 0 (0%) | 0.40 |
| Yes | 5 (26%) | 9 (47%) | (0.15, 0.82) | 1 (5%) | 13 (68%) | (0.13, 1.00) | 7 (33%) | 8 (38%) | (0.10, 0.69) |
| USH2 | |||||||||
| No | 9 (33%) | 0 (0%) | 0.25 | 5 (19%) | 4 (15%) | 0.40 | 8 (29%) | 1 (4%) | 0.07 |
| Yes | 12 (44%) | 6 (22%) | (0.04, 0.46) | 3 (11%) | 15 (56%) | (0.03, 0.77) | 15 (54%) | 4 (14%) | (−0.13, 0.27) |
| ARRP | |||||||||
| No | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.34 | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) | −0.06 | 2 (10%) | 0 (0%) | 0.17 |
| Yes | 3 (16%) | 15 (79%) | (−0.17, 0.86) | 1 (5%) | 17 (89%) | (−0.13, 0.02) | 9 (43%) | 10 (48%) | (−0.06, 0.40) |
*
Defined as at least one cluster of rod-mediated points in visual field where cyan relative to red sensitivity is >5 dB.
†
Defined as a white threshold of less than −30. Three participants missing data for FST White
‡
Defined as a blue threshold of less than −25. Three participants missing data for FST Blue.
§
Defined as ERG rod function b-wave amplitude of >0.
||
Bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method used to get 95% CIs for Kappa estimate.