Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32737731›Full record

ReviewInternational ophthalmology2020

The photopic negative response (PhNR): measurement approaches and utility in glaucoma.

Matteo Prencipe, Tommaso Perossini, Giampaolo Brancoli, Mario Perossini

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Sustained Plus Lens Defocus Alters Retinal Responses and Ciliary Muscle Morphology In Myopes and Near-emmetropes.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Association analyses of the measurements of the photopic negative response evoked by two ISCEV protocols.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matteo PrencipeDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and of Critical Area, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. teopren@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1872-5328
Tommaso PerossiniStudio Oculistico Associato Mario and Tommaso Perossini, Livorno, Italy.
Giampaolo BrancoliStudio Oculistico Associato Mario and Tommaso Perossini, Livorno, Italy.
Mario PerossiniStudio Oculistico Associato Mario and Tommaso Perossini, Livorno, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3722-0499
Fondazione Umberto Di Mario · ITUniversity of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVisual electrophysiological testing continues to generate interest among glaucoma experts because of its potential help in clarifying disease pathophysiology and promoting early detection of glaucomatous damage. The photopic negative response (PhNR) is a slow negative component of the full-field electroretinogram that has been shown to provide specific information about retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) activity. The purpose of this article is to review the literature to explore the currently available measurement methods and the utility of PhNR in glaucoma diagnostic process.

methodsWe gathered publications related to the origins, types of stimuli used, measurements methods and applications of the PhNR of ERG in animal models and humans through a search of the literature cited in PubMed. Search terms were: "PhNR", "photopic negative response", "glaucoma", "glaucomatous optic neuropathy", "ERG", "electroretinogram".

resultsThe most reliable PhNR measurements are obtained using a red stimulus on a blue background, without requiring refractive correction, fixation monitoring, or ocular media transparency. Given its direct correlation with RGCs response, the PhNR measured as baseline-to-trough (BT) represents the most reliable parameter of evaluation. Glaucoma patients with evident perimetric defects show pathologic PhNR values. Even though the PhNR is promising in detecting early RGCs impairment, distinguishing between healthy subjects and suspect patients at risk of developing glaucomatous damage still remains challenging.

conclusionThe PhNR is a useful additional tool to explore disorders that affect the innermost retina, including glaucoma and other forms of optic neuropathy. In particular, comparing reports of the standard examinations (optic disc assessment, OCT RNFL measurement, standard automated perimetry) with the results of electrophysiological tests may be helpful in solving clinical diagnostic and management dilemmas. On the one hand, the PhNR of the ERG can examine the parvocellular pathways; on the other hand, the steady-state pattern ERG optimized for glaucoma screening (PERGLA) can explore the magnocellular pathways. This could give ophthalmologists a useful feedback to identify early RGCs alterations suggestive of glaucoma, stratify the risk and potentially monitor disease progression.

Indexed as

Color VisionGlaucomaAnimalsElectroretinographyHumansPhotic StimulationRetinal Ganglion CellsElectroretinogramERGGlaucomaPhNRPhotopic negative responseRetinal ganglion cell

Identifiers

PMID32737731
PMCPMC7669808
OpenAlexW3046639829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.