ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2024
Screening electro-oculography protocol as a part of full-field electroretinography.
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 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.
- Review of the clinical electrooculogram - Part 2: the bestrophinopathies and modified protocols.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- The short wavelength electro-oculogram (SW-EOG) in best disease: preliminary results.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Selective reduction of the light peak-to-dark trough ratio in reticular macular disease: an electrooculography study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo simplify the electro-oculography (EOG) method and integrate it into the full-field electroretinogram (ffERG) protocol for screening purposes.
methods20 control subjects and 5 patients with Best vitelliform macular dystrophy (BVMD) underwent EOG recording according to both the standard protocol and screening EOG protocol that was integrated as part of ffERG testing. Mean values of light peak-to-dark trough ratio (LP:DT ratio) were compared between both protocols using the Student's t-test, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of RPE dysfunction were evaluated with ROC analysis and a survey on the difficulty of each protocol was completed by each subject.
resultsWith the standard EOG mean LP:DT ratio was 2.67 ± 0.61 in controls and 1.12 ± 0.16 in BVMD patients (p < 0.001). With the screening protocol mean LP:DT ratio was 1.98 ± 0.33 in controls and 1.02 ± 0.14 in BVMD (p < 0.001). A comparison of LP:DT ratios showed significant difference between the standard and the screening protocol (p < 0.01 in controls; p = 0.02 in BVMD), however both protocols showed 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detection of BVMD. Patients stated that participation in the screening protocol was easier and less uncomfortable.
conclusionsScreening EOG performed as part of ffERG gives comparable results to standard EOG, examination is patient-friendly, time saving and can be used as a preliminary test for the assessment of RPE function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39543056What 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.