Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31327119›Full record

ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2019

Multifocal electroretinogram in eyes with intravitreal silicone oil and changes following silicone oil removal.

Devesh Kumawat, Pranita Sahay, Karthikeyan Mahalingam, S J Vikas, Sagnik Sen, Mousumi Banerjee, Pradeep Venkatesh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Devesh KumawatDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India. deveshkumawat21@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0204-7024
Pranita SahayDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Karthikeyan MahalingamDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India.
S J VikasDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Sagnik SenDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Mousumi BanerjeeDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Pradeep VenkateshDr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room no. 485, Fourth Floor, New Delhi, 110029, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the effect of intravitreal silicone oil (SO) on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) and the changes in mfERG following SO removal.

methodsTwelve eyes of 12 patients with SO in vitreous cavity with corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) > 20/200 were prospectively enrolled as cases over a period from July 2016 to June 2018. The fellow normal eyes served as control. The eyes were evaluated with P1 and N1 wave amplitude and implicit time on mfERG at baseline, 1 and 4 weeks after SO removal.

resultsThe mean age was 44.9 ± 18.9 (range 18-74) years. The indication for SO injection was retinal detachment (n = 9, three macula-on eyes, six macula-off eyes) and endophthalmitis (n = 3). The median (range) LogMAR CDVA at baseline was 0.54 (0.18-0.78) in cases and did not change post-SO removal (p = 0.29). There was a significant decrease in average P1 and N1 wave amplitude (p = 0.0001 and 0.0001, respectively) and delay in average P1 and N1 wave implicit time (p = 0.0002 and 0.021, respectively) in cases as compared to controls. The macular status and duration of SO tamponade did not have a significant correlation with mfERG parameters. There was a significant increase in average P1 and N1 wave amplitude (p = 0.009 and 0.003, respectively) at 1 week following SO removal but no change in average P1 and N1 wave implicit time (p = 0.41 and 0.37, respectively).

conclusionmfERG may be reliably performed for the assessment of macular function in SO-filled eyes. Intravitreal SO exerts an insulating effect on the density of the electric potentials.

Indexed as

EndotamponadeAdolescentAdultAgedDrainageElectroretinographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetinaRetinal DetachmentSilicone OilsVisual AcuityVitreoretinal SurgerySilicone OilsMultifocal electroretinogramRetinal detachmentSilicone oilVisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID31327119
OpenAlexW2963873533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.