ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2021
A comparison of the Grass strobe and new LED photic stimulator for paediatric electroretinogram recordings.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated a new light-emitting diode (LED-S) photic stimulator and compared skin electroretinogram (ERG) responses obtained to those evoked by the Grass Instrument stimulator (GP-S).
methodsTwo sub-studies were combined to evaluate the difference in responses resulting from the LED-S and GP-S stimuli. The first was a photometry study that matched the LED-S stimuli to the GP-S. In the second study, electroretinograms (ERGs) were recorded under scotopic and photopic conditions using stimuli each stimulator. The stimuli were matched photometrically to measurements obtained from the photometer located 30 cm in front of the stimulators. In addition, the ERG responses were recorded from the LED stimulator when photometrically matched to the GP-S blue stimulus presented through a ganzfeld. The amplitudes and time peaks of the resulting ERG a- and b-waves were then measured and compared using paired T-tests.
resultsStudy 1: The LED-S was matched to the GP-S at various intensity settings measured 30 cm away from the stimulator. Measurement through a ganzfeld full-field stimulator (GFFS) demonstrated that the GP-S had a significant hot spot centrally. Study 2: Photometrically matched ERGs evoked by both stimulators while employing the direct head-on measurements demonstrated multiple similarities. Similarities included component morphology, amplitude and implicit time across the two stimulators, excluding the rod-driven stimulus (GP-S setting employing a blue filter). Differences between the rod-driven ERGs evoked by the GP-S and LED-S while employing head-on photometric measurements were due to the significant difference in intensities between the two stimulators. The GP-S and LED-S evoked similar rod-driven ERG responses when they were matched using the GFFS photometrically matched intensities protocol.
conclusionA hand-held stimulator is essential when recording ERG's in the practice of paediatric visual electrophysiology. The LED-S can match the GP-S stimulus intensities, making it a potential replacement for the GP-S. In addition, the LED-S has uniform intensity across the surface of the device compared to the GP-S, is silent for standard stimuli and can generate prolonged duration stimuli for the recording of on-off ERGs.
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.