ReviewDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2001
Diagnosis and classification of macular degenerations: an approach based on retinal function testing.
Review in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dark Adaptometry as a Diagnostic Tool in Retinal Diseases: Mechanisms and Clinical Utility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Genetic characteristics of 234 Italian patients with macular and cone/cone-rod dystrophy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Cerebral Modifications and Visual Pathway Reorganization in Maculopathy: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Review
- Application of multifocal visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual dysfunction in macular diseases.Eye (London, England) · 2011Article
- The electroretinogram: a useful tool for evaluating age-related macular disease?Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2010Review
- V1 projection zone signals in human macular degeneration depend on task, not stimulus.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2008Article
- Genotype-phenotype correlations and differential diagnosis in autosomal dominant macular disease.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The results from literature concerning some aspects of retinal function in macular degenerations (MDs) were reviewed in order to evaluate whether (a) specific patterns of retinal dysfunction may be linked to different clinical phenotypes, and (b) distinct functional profiles may help in orienting molecular diagnosis of diseases. Examined clinical phenotypes included: Stargardt disease/fundus flavimaculatus (St/FF), age-related maculopathy (ARM) and macular degeneration (AMD), pattern dystrophies (PD), Best vitelliform dystrophy (BVD), Sorsby's fundus dystrophy (SFD), autosomal cone-rod dystrophies (CRD). The following functional tests were evaluated: (1) electroretinogram (ERG) (scotopic and photopic according to ISCEV standards, rod and cone photoresponses, rod and cone b-wave intensity-response function, focal ERGs); (2) dark adaptometry (pre-bleach sensitivity and post-bleach recovery kinetics); (3) fundus reflectometry (pigment density and regeneration kinetics). Specific patterns of retinal dysfunction were identified for St/FF, ARM/AMD, SFD and BVD, whereas partially overlapping profiles were found for PD and CRD. Specific functional patterns were associated with different peripherin/RDS gene mutations, as well as with CRX mutations. Combined analysis of different retinal function tests may help to identify different phenotypes of MD, and to orient molecular diagnosis for selected genotypes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.