Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31549345›Full record

ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2020

Comparison of the uniform-field electroretinogram and the pattern electroretinogram to checkerboard and bar gratings.

Alexander J Lingley, Ange-Lynca Kantungane, Stuart G Coupland

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2020. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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, 3 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander J LingleyFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6637-6364
Ange-Lynca KantunganeOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Stuart G CouplandOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. scoupland@ohri.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3323-7915
University of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the electroretinal response associated with the uniform-field electroretinogram (UF-ERG) to that of the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) to checkerboard and bar-grating stimuli.

methodsUF-ERG and PERG to bars and checkerboard were recorded for 18 visually normal subjects (36 eyes) of mean age 45 years (range 20-75). UF-ERG was recorded to the increment and decrement of a 200-ms duration luminance modulation. Luminance onset and offset UF-ERG responses were averaged to produce a simulation of the PERG response. The mean amplitude and implicit time for the P

resultsThe simulated PERG waveform resulting from arithmetic averaging of the UF-ERG to luminance increment and decrement was characterized by prominent positive and negative components resembling those of the P

conclusionsThe UF-ERG to light onset and offset can be reliably recorded in human subjects. The extent to which the simulated PERG recapitulates the actual PERG response is better with checkerboard rather than bar-grating stimuli.

Indexed as

AdultAgedElectroretinographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPattern Recognition, VisualRetinal Ganglion CellsYoung AdultPattern electroretinogramPhotopic negative responseUniform-field electroretinogram

Identifiers

PMID31549345
OpenAlexW2976187548

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.