ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Statistical Evaluation of ERG Responses: A New Method to Validate Cycle-by-Cycle Recordings in Advanced Retinal Degenerations.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. 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.
- Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe and evaluate a novel method to determine the validity of measurements made using cycle-by-cycle (CxC) recording techniques in patients with advanced retinal degenerations (RD) having low-amplitude flicker electroretinogram (ERG) responses. Methods: The method extends the original CxC recording algorithm introduced by Sieving et al., retaining the original recording setup and the preliminary analysis of raw data. Novel features include extended use of spectrum analysis, reduction of errors due to known sources, and a comprehensive statistical assessment using three different tests. The method was applied to ERG recordings from seven patients with RD and two patients with CNGB3 achromatopsia. Results: The method was implemented as a Windows application to processes raw data obtained from a commercial ERG system, and it features a computational toolkit for statistical assessment of ERG recordings with amplitudes as low as 1 µV, commonly found in advanced RD patients. When recorded using conditions specific for eliciting cone responses, none of the CNGB3 patients had a CxC validated response, indicating that no signal artifacts were present with our recording conditions. A comparison of the presented method with conventional 30 Hz ERG was performed. Bland-Altman plots indicated good agreement (mean difference, -0.045 µV; limits of agreement, 0.193 to -0.282 µV) between the resulting amplitudes. Within-session test-retest variability was 15%, comparing favorably to the variability of standard ERG amplitudes. Conclusions: This novel method extracts highly reliable clinical recordings of low-amplitude flicker ERGs and effectively detects artifactual responses. It has potential value both as a cone outcome variable and planning tool in clinical trials on natural history and treatment of advanced RDs.
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.