ArticleNoro psikiyatri arsivi2018
Effects of Hemodialysis on Visual Pathways Assessed by Visual Evoked Potentials (VEPs).
Article in Noro psikiyatri arsivi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUremia is a metabolic disorder that affects the functions of the central nervous system (CNS). Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be used to demonstrate uremia-induced effects on the CNS. Data on VEPs of patients with chronic renal failure (CRF) are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of renal failure and the ultrafiltration rate (UFR) on CNS functions in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) using VEPs.
methodsThe study consisted of 30 CRF patients undergoing HD, and a control group of 28 individuals, matched in terms of age and gender. Patients with mental retardation, diabetes mellitus, demyelinating disease, stroke, use of neurotoxic drugs, and ophthalmologic diseases were excluded from the study. The pattern VEP (PVEP) parameters recorded were latencies to N75 (N1), P100 (P1) and N135 (N2) waves, and the peak-to-peak amplitude of a P100 wave. The PVEP was taken twice just before and 24 h after HD, and the PVEP parameters were compared. Additionally, the effect of the UFR on the PVEP parameters was examined.
resultsThere was no difference between the HD group and control group in terms of gender and age (mean ages of 49.56±12.52 and 48.53±13.28 years, respectively). The average HD period was 87.53±56.34 months. The P1 latencies between the two eyes the patients with CRF were prolonged when compared to those of the controls (right eye p=0.002; left eye p=0.019). A single HD session significantly shortened the latency of the P1 waves compared to that of the baseline waves (p<0.000). Additionally, there was a positive correlation between the difference in the P1 latency before and after HD and the UFR (right eye p=0.03, r=0.525; left eye p=0.022, r=0.417, respectively).
conclusionWe conclude that VEP, which is an easy, cheap, and simple electrophysiological method, can be used to determine subclinical CNS dysfunction in patients with CRF and show the effect of fluid removal during HD on the visual pathways, and to show the corrective effect of effective fluid imaging on the visual pathways.
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.