ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Comparison of Full-Field Stimulus Threshold Measurements in Patients With Retinitis Pigmentosa and Healthy Subjects With Dilated and Nondilated Pupil.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. 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.
- Test-retest variability of the full-field stimulus test in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: REPEAT Study Report No. 4.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Mild RPE65-Associated Inherited Retinal Dystrophies: A Multimodal Clinical and Genetic Evaluation.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Relationship between the full-field stimulus test and self-reported visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: REPEAT Study report No. 3.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The common protocol of full-field stimulus threshold (FST) testing recommends pupil dilation. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference between FST measurements with dilated and nondilated pupils in healthy subjects and patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Methods: Twenty healthy subjects and 20 RP patients were selected. One pupil of each subject was dilated; the other eye was measured in physiological width of the pupil. The FST was conducted using Diagnosys Espion E2/E3 with white, blue, and red stimuli. Statistical analysis was conducted with a mixed-model analysis of variance and a paired t-test. Results: The statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between measurements of dilated and nondilated pupils with the following: blue stimuli for all subjects and groups except those with highly progressed RP; white stimuli for all tested subjects in total, for RP patients with better-preserved visual field (VF), and rod-mediated FST response; and red stimuli for RP patients with better-preserved VF and rod-mediated FST response. On average, the difference between the FST values for RP patients were -3.2 ± 3 dB for blue, -2.3 ± 2.9 dB for white, and -0.83 ± 3 dB for red stimuli. The correlation between the FST values of dilated and nondilated pupils with all three stimuli was linear. Conclusions: Current recommendations are to perform FST with dilated pupils. However, based on this study's findings, pupil dilation can be omitted for clinical diagnostics or rough follow-ups. Translational Relevance: Our data provide useful information for the clinical use of FST.
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.