ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Comparison of ring 1 parameters in 37-segment multifocal electroretinography between onset and offset conditions of ring 2 to 4 in normal subjects.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate whether the response of a central hexagonal element corresponding to the macular area in conventional multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) tests was the same as that of experimental mfERG using single central hexagonal element stimulation.
methodsProspective, observational study. Thirty healthy subjects were included in this study. mfERG recordings were performed according to two protocols: stimulus with 37 hexagonal elements (protocol 1), and stimulus with a single central element created by deactivating the other 36 hexagonal elements (protocol 2). We compared differences between ring 1 parameters in each protocol.
resultsIn protocol 1, the first positive component (P1) implicit time and P1 amplitude were 37.8±1.8ms and 6.3±2.7 µV. After single element stimulation (protocol 2), double positive waves appeared. The implicit time and amplitude of P1 were 40.7±2.4ms (
conclusionmfERG responses of a central hexagonal element in a single element stimulation protocol are different from those of multiple element stimulation. The positive wave is more enhanced compared to that of the conventional protocol and it elongated into two wavelets.
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.