Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37334035›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science2023

Pattern Electroretinogram in Ocular Hypertension, Glaucoma Suspect and Early Manifest Glaucoma Eyes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Gabriele Gallo Afflitto, Tsung-Han Chou, Swarup S Swaminathan, Francesco Aiello, Steven J Gedde, Carlo Nucci, Vittorio Porciatti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriele Gallo AfflittoBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Tsung-Han ChouBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Swarup S SwaminathanBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Francesco AielloOphthalmology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Steven J GeddeBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Carlo NucciOphthalmology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Vittorio PorciattiBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
University of Miami · USUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Topic: To provide standardized confidence limits of the transient pattern electroretinogram (tPERG) P50 and N95 and steady state pattern electroretinogram (ssPERG) amplitudes in normal controls as compared to ocular hypertension (OHT), glaucoma suspect (GS), or early manifest glaucoma (EMG) eyes. Clinical Relevance: The identification of standardized confidence limits in the context of pattern electroretinogram (PERG) might overcome the high intrinsic variability of the measure, and it might lead to a more intuitive understanding of the results as well as to an easier comparison of data from multiple tests, sites, and operators. Methods: The study protocol was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42022370032). A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies comparing PERG raw data in normal control eyes as compared to OHT, GS, or EMG were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality assessment tool. The main outcome was the P50, N95, and ssPERG amplitude difference between the control and the study groups' eyes. The standardized mean difference was calculated as a measure of the effect size for the primary outcome. A subanalysis was conducted based on the type of electrodes adopted for the PERG measurements (invasive vs. noninvasive). Results: Of the 4580 eligible papers, only 23 were included (1754 eyes). Statistically significant amplitude differences were found in the P50, N95, and ssPERG amplitudes between normal controls and OHT, GS, and EMG eyes. The highest standardized mean difference values were observed in the ssPERG amplitude in all 3 sets of comparison. The subanalysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences between invasive and noninvasive recording strategies. Conclusions: The use of standardized values as the main outcome measures in the context of the PERG data analysis is a valid approach, normalizing several confounding factors which have affected the clinical utility of PERG both for individual patients and in clinical trials. Steady state PERG apparently better discriminates diseased eyes compared to tPERG. The adoption of skin-active electrodes is able to adequately discriminate between healthy and diseased statuses. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Indexed as

ElectrophysiologyGlaucomaGlaucoma suspectOHTPattern electroretinogram

Identifiers

PMID37334035
PMCPMC10272507
OpenAlexW4367300874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.