ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2020
Impact of contact lens materials on the mfERG response of the human retina.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancement of the Inner Foveal Response of Young Adults with Extended-Depth-of-Focus Contact Lens for Myopia Management.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Short-term delay in neural response with multifocal contact lens might start at the retinal level.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Retinal Response of Low Myopes during Orthokeratology Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of different hydrophilic and rigid gas-permeable contact lens (CL) materials on multifocal electroretinography (mfERG).
methodsThe mfERG was recorded in 18 healthy subjects with RETI-port/scan21™: 11 subjects underwent mfERG recording wearing two different hydrophilic CLs with different water contents in a randomized order (1 silicone hydrogel-Comfilcon A, 48%EWC, and 1 hydrogel-Omafilcon A, 62% EWC) and 7 other subjects wore a hydrophobic rigid gas-permeable scleral lens (SL)-Hexafocon A. Control measures were recorded without CL in both groups. mfERG recordings were performed with a stimulus array pattern of 103-scaled hexagons displayed on a 19-inch RGB monitor at 28 cm distance at a frame rate of 60 Hz. The amplitude (nV), implicit time and response density (nV/deg
resultsHydrophobic material significantly decreased the P1 amplitude of the total mfERG response, at Rings 3, 4 and 6 and Quadrant 4 (> 53.77 ± 43.2 nV; P ≤ 0.050), as well as the total (- 71.59 ± 50.68 nV) and Ring 6 (- 104.76 ± 79.88 nV) N2 amplitude (P ≤ 0.043). N1, P1 and N2 peak times suffered significant changes with both hydrophilic CL (P ≤ 0.050). Omafilcon A significantly increased P1 amplitude of Ring 5 and N2 amplitude of Ring 4, when compared to baseline (52.40 ± 71.87 nV; P = 0.036) and to Comfilcon A (39.51 ± 48.63 nV; P = 0.023), respectively.
conclusionsHydrophobic CL slightly attenuated the strength of the mfERG signal, especially at the middle to peripheral retinal areas, while hydrophilic CL slightly changed the implicit time of the response. Different hydrophilic CL materials might affect the mfERG response differently. When considering the measurement of mfERG obtained with a CL in place, researchers should bear in mind that some changes can be related to CL material.
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.