ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2015
Electrophysiological testing as a method of cone-rod and cone dystrophy diagnoses and prediction of disease progression.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Clinical Contribution of Full-Field Electroretinography and 8-Year Experiences of Application in a Tertiary Medical Center.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Progressive cone and cone-rod dystrophies: clinical features, molecular genetics and prospects for therapy.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2019Review
- Cerebral malaria induces electrophysiological and neurochemical impairment in mice retinal tissue: possible effect on glutathione and glutamatergic system.Malaria journal · 2017Article
- A Case Presentation Emphasizing the Value of Full-field ERG in Retinal Dystrophies.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the characteristics of patients with cone (CD) and cone-rod dystrophies (CRD) and to evaluate the changes in flash electroretinograms in both groups.
methodsThe retrospective study involved 48 patients-34 with CRD and 14 with CD. The patients underwent full ophthalmological examination, including Goldmann perimetry and full-field flash electroretinogram (FERG) within the initial examination. These examinations were then repeated seven, or more, years later. The longest follow-up period was 10 years, with the mean at 8.2 years. During both examinations, we assessed the amplitudes of the b wave in the scotopic ERG test 0.01 (which reflects rod response), the maximal scotopic ERG test 3.0 (which reflects cone and rod response) and the photopic 3.0 ERG test (which reflects cone response). The results were then compared against normal values.
resultsThe progression over time of ERG b wave amplitudes in the scotopic ERG 0.01, maximal scotopic ERG 3.0 and photopic ERG tests was assessed. There were significant differences in rod, maximal and cone responses, between CD and CRD patients. While rod responses were markedly decreased in CRD patients during their initial examination, the decrease in the rod function in both CD and CRD patients was similar in their follow-up examination (p = 0.2398). Moreover, during initial examination, maximal responses were less common amongst CRD patients, over those with CD. Following the observation period, patients suffering from CRD exhibited a significant decrease in both maximal (p = 0.0125) and cone (p = 0.0046) responses.
conclusionThe clinical course of CRD and CD may vary; however, the latter appears to have a more favourable course than former. Although, at initial examination, the cone function was more diminished in CD patients, the final examinations reveal a more significant drop for CRD patients. Consequently, a differential diagnosis is essential for treating patients and forecasting their disease progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25603773What 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.