Trial reportDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2020
The rapid N-wave as a potentially useful measure of the photopic negative response.
Trial report 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
purposeThe photopic negative response (PhNR) correlates with ganglion cell function and has previously been examined as an indicator of glaucomatous optic nerve damage. However, it is a prolonged response that is measured against baseline, and its clinical utility has been limited by extensive variability, poor repeatability, and baseline instability. We have observed a distinct brief negative wave ("N-wave") commonly present within the slow PhNR trough, which may provide practical and analytic advantages as a clinical measure.
methodsWe reviewed data from an interventional trial of 59 glaucoma patients who had 4 exams over an 8-month period. The PhNR was recorded with standard ISCEV stimuli (1 Hz and in some cases 4 Hz stimulation), and N-waves were measured manually, relative to return to baseline.
resultsN-waves, when present, could be measured easily despite shifting baselines and a degree of background noise. The PhNR median amplitude centered around 18 μV, while the N-wave median centered around 7 μV, with a distribution of responses skewed toward low or zero amplitudes.
conclusionsThe N-wave appears to be a component of the longer PhNR, though its exact origin and significance remain unclear. As a rapid waveform that is independent of baseline, the N-wave is in many ways easier to measure accurately than the slower PhNR, which is highly dependent on baseline stability. The N-wave may prove useful clinically if further studies can optimize its stimulation, show its behavior in normal individuals and find correlation with markers of optic nerve disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32507902What 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.