ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2020
ERG shrinks by 10% when reducing dark adaptation time to 10 min, but only for weak flashes.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electroretinography in the Collared Scops Owl (Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Synthetic electroretinogram signal generation using a conditional generative adversarial network.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Enhancing Electroretinogram Classification with Multi-Wavelet Analysis and Visual Transformer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Human retinal dark adaptation tracked in vivo with the electroretinogram: insights into processes underlying recovery of cone- and rod-mediated vision.The Journal of physiology · 2022Review
- Evolution of the retinal function by flash-ERG in one child suffering from neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis CLN2 treated with cerliponase alpha: case report.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare dark-adapted (DA) ERG between 10, 15 and 20 min of dark adaptation (DA).
methodsIn a counterbalanced random block design, 40 healthy adult subjects were dark-adapted for 10, 15 or 20 min before we recorded ERGs to nine flash strengths from 0.001 to 10.0 cd s/m
resultsThe a-wave amplitude was not affected by any adaptation condition. For the b-wave amplitude, effects of reduced DA time are stronger for weaker flashes: Reducing DA from 20 to 10 min had no measurable effect on the DA 3 ERG, but reduced the DA 0.01 b-wave significantly (p < 0.0001) to 87 ± 2% (mean ± SEM). The DA 0.001 b-wave (not part of the ISCEV ERG Standard) was more affected (down to 72 ± 4%). There was a small, but significant, increase, only for weak flashes, in a- and b-wave peak times for 20 compared to 10-min dark adaptation time.
conclusionReducing dark adaptation time from 20 to 10 min in normal participants has no effect on the ISCEV DA 3 and DA 10 ERG. The reduction in DA 0.01 ERGs to 87 ± 2% agrees with Hamilton and Graham (Doc Ophthalmol 133:11-19, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9554-x ) who found 90 ± 2% and with Asakawa et al. (Doc Ophthalmol 139:33-44, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09693-8 ) who found 83%. Pending verification in pathophysiological states, the current results suggest that one might be able to correct for the 10% amplitude loss when gaining 10 min through shortened DA.
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.