ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2021
Fundus motion during mfERG testing.
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. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term variability of the multifocal ERG in clinical settings.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess eye movements during a multifocal ERG (mfERG) recording. This study evaluated the relationship between bivariate contour ellipse areas (BCEAs), mfERG amplitudes (Amps) and mfERG implicit times (ITs) with repeat testing and experienced subjects.
methodsThirty subjects were selected (15 experienced to ocular procedures and 15 novices). All were confirmed to have healthy retinas and at least 20/25 vision. MfERGs with a stimulus near 100% contrast and 4-min m-sequence were recorded on two different days using our common clinical technique, which did not constrain the head. VERIS with fundus monitoring system was used for recording with a Burian-Allen electrode. An external camera captured the fundus during each mfERG recording. The optic nerve head position was tracked in each video using a custom algorithm in order to determine BCEAs. Each subject performed one mfERG on two different days. MfERGs were analyzed for Amps and ITs for the fovea and whole eye.
resultsThere was no correlation between the mfERG metrics and BCEAs with repeat testing. There were also no differences between the experienced and novice subjects for mfERG Amps, ITs or BCEAs. Eye movements between visits were highly correlated (multiple r = 0.67). BCEAs were larger during mfERGs (1.04 ± 0.8 deg
conclusionsThis study is the first to evaluate the stability of the retina while recording a mfERG in healthy subjects and indicates that the center of fixation during a mfERG stays within the central hexagon. Eye stability during an initial recording is the best indicator of stability on the second recording. The amount of movement during these recordings did not seem to affect the mfERG Amps or ITs. These data suggest clinical confidence with mfERGs when recording novice patients.
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.