ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Electroretinographic Assessments of Macular Function after Brilliant Blue G Staining for Inner Limiting Membrane Peeling.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of brilliant blue G (BBG) staining of the inner limiting membrane (ILM) on macular function. Method: Fourteen eyes of 14 patients consisting of 9 men and 5 women who underwent vitreous surgery with ILM peeling were studied. The mean age of the patients was 68.8 ± 9.14 years. Three eyes had a macular hole and eleven eyes had an epiretinal membrane. The ILM was made more visible by spraying 0.25% BBG into the vitreous cavity. The macular function was assessed by recording intraoperative focal macular electroretinograms (iFMERGs) before and after the intravitreal spraying of the BBG dye. The iFMERGs were recorded three times after core vitrectomy. The first recording was performed before the BBG injection (Phase 1, baseline), the second recording was performed after the spraying of the BBG and washing out the excess BBG (Phase 2), and the third recording was performed after the ILM peeling (Phase 3). All recordings were performed after 5 min of light-adaptation and stabilization of the intraocular conditions. The iFMERGs were recorded twice at each phase. The implicit times and amplitudes of the a- and b-wave, the PhNR, and the d-wave were measured. Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine the significance of differences of the findings at Phase 2 vs. Phase 1 and Phase 3 vs. Phase 1. A p value < 0.05 was taken to be statistically significant. Results: The average implicit times of the a-wave, b-wave, PhNR, and d-wave were not significantly different in Phase 1, 2, and 3. The average a-wave, b-wave, PhNR, and d-wave amplitudes at Phase 1 did not differ significantly from that at Phase 2 and at Phase 3. Conclusions: The results indicated that the intravitreal injection of BBG does not alter the physiology of the macula, and we conclude that BBG is safe. We also conclude that iFMERGs can be used to monitor the macular function safely during intraocular surgery.
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.