ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2017
Test-retest reliability of scotopic full-field electroretinograms in rabbits.
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 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.
- Longitudinal retinal functional evaluation using full-field electroretinography in New Zealand white and Dutch Belted rabbits with aging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the repeatability of the multifocal electroretinogram in the cone dominant 13-lined ground squirrel.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- ERG shrinks by 10% when reducing dark adaptation time to 10 min, but only for weak flashes.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Safety and tolerability evaluation after repeated intravitreal injections of a humanized anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody (PRO-169) versus ranibizumab in New Zealand white rabbits.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2020Article
- The effects of intravitreal sodium iodate injection on retinal degeneration following vitrectomy in rabbits.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore test-retest reliability of standard scotopic full-field ERG measurements in New Zealand White rabbits. The ERG is widely used for testing of retinal integrity after any ocular treatment. We here present detailed stimulus-response dependencies for single healthy and untreated animals, concentrating on test-retest reproducibility. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive New Zealand White rabbits (aged 8-10 weeks, weight about 2.0-2.5 kg) underwent binocular ERG measurements after intramuscular anesthesia and pharmaceutical pupillary dilatation at a baseline day and 10 days later. Eleven scotopic flash strengths (0.0001-10 cd s/m
resultsThe a-waves displayed the typical monotonic sigmoid amplitude increase with flash strength, and the b-waves peaked at 0.01 cd s/m
conclusionsScotopic ERG responses in rabbits display a region of high variability at 0.1-0.3 cd s/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
28303363What 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.