ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2021
Prevalence of electronegative electroretinograms in a healthy adult cohort.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cone-driven strong flash electroretinograms in healthy adults: Prevalence of negative waveforms.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Electroretinogram abnormalities in FKRP-related limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMDR9).Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Electronegative electroretinogram in the modern multimodal imaging era.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAn electronegative electroretinogram (ERG) can indicate important ocular or systemic disease. This study explored the prevalence of electronegative responses to dark-adapted stimuli in a largely healthy cohort. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 211 participants recruited from the TwinsUK cohort underwent ERG testing incorporating international standard (International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV)) protocols and additional stimuli. Responses were recorded using conductive fibre electrodes, following pupil dilation and 20 min dark adaptation. Responses analysed were to the ISCEV standard and strong flashes (3.0 and 10 cd/m
resultsMean (SD) age was 62.4 (11.4) years (median, 64.3; range 23-86 years). 93% were female. Mean (SD) b:a ratios for right and left eyes, respectively, were 1.86 (0.33) and 1.81 (0.29) for the standard flash, and 1.62 (0.25) and 1.58 (0.23) for the stronger flash; average b:a ratio was lower for the stronger flash (p<0.0001). No waveforms were electronegative. For additional flashes, b:a ratio decreased with increasing flash strength. No electronegative waveforms were seen except in three eyes (0.7%) for the strongest flash; in some cases, drift in the waveform may have artefactually reduced the b:a ratio.
conclusionFor standard dark-adapted stimuli, no participants had electronegative waveforms. The findings support the notion that electronegative waveforms (in response to standard flash strengths) are unusual, and should prompt further investigation.
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.