ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2024
A modified analysis protocol for the PhNR test.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 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.
- Photopic negative response (PhNR) of the full-field electroretinogram as a biomarker of retinal ganglion cell loss in glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral studies have reported that glaucoma patients have abnormal photopic negative response (PhNR) results compared to reference control subjects. The International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) released an extended protocol for PhNR (I-PhNR) in 2018. The purpose of this study was to compare the I-PhNR protocol to a similar protocol modified (M-PhNR) to enhance the performance of the method in detecting glaucomatous damage.
methodsThirty subjects were enrolled in this study (12 glaucoma patients, 10 glaucoma suspects, 8 normal controls). PhNR tests were conducted with a Diagnosys E3 mobile system (Diagnosys LLC, Lowell, MA). I-PhNR tests utilized all parameters specified by the ISCEV requirement. M-PhNR tests used the same parameters as the ISCEV tests with the exceptions of a 5-45 Hz bandpass filter and a novel, objective sweep-selection parameter. According to the ISCEV protocol, the PhNR relative to baseline (i.e., BT), a-wave and b-wave response amplitudes and BT/b-wave amplitude ratios were measured. Coefficients of variation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and t-tests were used to assess the data from one randomly chosen eye per subject.
resultsThe M-PhNR protocol resulted in a decrease in the intra-subject repeat test coefficient of variation and a decrease in the average inter-subject coefficient of variation for the glaucoma subjects. The ROC curves demonstrated an increase in the area under the curve (AUC) for the M-PhNR compared to the I-PhNR protocol. The sensitivity and specificity were also greater for the M-PhNR protocol.
conclusionsThe M-PhNR protocol resulted in a decrease in intra-subject and inter-subject data variability which resulted in a significant increase in the ROC AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for glaucoma. Thus, the M-PhNR protocol shows promise as a better diagnostic tool than the I-PhNR protocol for detecting glaucoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39476209What 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.