ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2017
Test-retest reliability of the multifocal photopic negative response.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- DTL versus skin electrodes in recording of multifocal pattern electroretinogram and multifocal photopic negative response.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the repeatability of the multifocal electroretinogram in the cone dominant 13-lined ground squirrel.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Translation and Validation of the Premenstrual Assessment Form-Short Form Questionnaire in Hungarian.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Non-invasive electrophysiology in glaucoma, structure and function-a review.Eye (London, England) · 2021Review
- Clinical electrophysiology of the optic nerve and retinal ganglion cells.Eye (London, England) · 2021Review
- Relationship between structural and functional changes in glaucomatous eyes: a multifocal electroretinogram study.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Photopic negative response using a handheld mini-ganzfeld stimulator in healthy adults: normative values, intra- and inter-session variability.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyzer and Photopic Negative Response of Focal Macular Electroretinograms in the Evaluation of the Relationship Between Macula Structure and Function.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- The photopic negative response (PhNR): measurement approaches and utility in glaucoma.International ophthalmology · 2020Review
- Combined Multi-Modal Assessment of Glaucomatous Damage With Electroretinography and Optical Coherence Tomography/Angiography.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the test-retest reliability of the multifocal photopic negative response (mfPhNR) of normal human subjects.
methodsMultifocal electroretinograms were recorded from one eye of 61 healthy adult subjects on two separate days using a Visual Evoked Response Imaging System software version 4.3 (EDI, San Mateo, California). The visual stimulus delivered on a 75-Hz monitor consisted of seven equal-sized hexagons each subtending 12° of visual angle. The m-step exponent was 9, and the m-sequence was slowed to include at least 30 blank frames after each flash. Only the first slice of the first-order kernel was analyzed. The mfPhNR amplitude was measured at a fixed time in the trough from baseline (BT) as well as at the same fixed time in the trough from the preceding b-wave peak (PT). Additionally, we also analyzed BT normalized either to PT (BT/PT) or to the b-wave amplitude (BT/b-wave). The relative reliability of test-retest differences for each test location was estimated by the Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Absolute test-retest reliability was estimated by Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsThe test-retest amplitude differences for neither of the two measurement techniques were statistically significant as determined by Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test. PT measurements showed greater ICC values than BT amplitude measurements for all test locations. For each measurement technique, the ICC value of the macular response was greater than that of the surrounding locations. The mean test-retest difference was close to zero for both techniques at each of the test locations, and while the coefficient of reliability (COR-1.96 times the standard deviation of the test-retest difference) was comparable for the two techniques at each test location when expressed in nanovolts, the %COR (COR normalized to the mean test and retest amplitudes) was superior for PT than BT measurements. The ICC and COR were comparable for the BT/PT and BT/b-wave ratios and were better than the ICC and COR for BT but worse than PT.
conclusionmfPhNR amplitude measured at a fixed time in the trough from the preceding b-wave peak (PT) shows greater test-retest reliability when compared to amplitude measurement from baseline (BT) or BT amplitude normalized to either the PT or b-wave amplitudes.
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.