Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33880667›Full record

ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2021

Reference ranges for clinical electrophysiology of vision.

C Quentin Davis, Ruth Hamilton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The reproducibility of handheld ERGs recorded with skin electrode and natural pupils.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Electroretinographic Evaluations of Eyes With Endophthalmitis.Translational vision science & technology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

C Quentin DavisLKC Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3795-3625
Ruth HamiltonDepartment of Clinical Physics and Bioengineering, Royal Hospital for Children, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK. ruth.hamilton@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0855-9533

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEstablishing robust reference intervals for clinical procedures has received much attention from international clinical laboratories, with approved guidelines. Physiological measurement laboratories have given this topic less attention; however, most of the principles are transferable.

methodsHerein, we summarise those principles and expand them to cover bilateral measurements and one-tailed reference intervals, which are common issues for those interpreting clinical visual electrophysiology tests such as electroretinograms (ERGs), visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and electrooculograms (EOGs).

resultsThe gold standard process of establishing and defining reference intervals, which are adequately reliable, entails collecting data from a minimum of 120 suitable reference individuals for each partition (e.g. sex, age) and defining limits with nonparametric methods. Parametric techniques may be used under some conditions. A brief outline of methods for defining reference limits from patient data (indirect sampling) is given. Reference intervals established elsewhere, or with older protocols, can be transferred or verified with as few as 40 and 20 suitable reference individuals, respectively. Consideration is given to small numbers of reference subjects, interpretation of serial measurements using subject-based reference values, multidimensional reference regions and age-dependent reference values. Bilateral measurements, despite their correlation, can be used to improve reference intervals although additional care is required in computing the confidence in the reference interval or the reference interval itself when bilateral measurements are only available from some of subjects. DISCUSSION: Good quality reference limits minimise false-positive and false-negative results, thereby maximising the clinical utility and patient benefit. Quality indicators include using appropriately sized reference datasets with appropriate numerical handling for reporting; using subject-based reference limits where appropriate; and limiting tests for each patient to only those which are clinically indicated, independent and highly discriminating.

Indexed as

ElectroretinographyEvoked Potentials, VisualElectrooculographyHumansReference ValuesVision, OcularEOGERGISCEV standardNormative dataReference dataReference intervalReference limitVEP

Identifiers

PMID33880667
PMCPMC8494724

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.