ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025
Association analyses of the measurements of the photopic negative response evoked by two ISCEV protocols.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo perform association analyses between the measurements of photopic negative response (PhNR) evoked by two ISCEV protocols.
methodsA total of 172 eyes from 72 post-operative pediatric cataract patients and 24 healthy children were enrolled. The amplitude and peak time of PhNR were analyzed in three eye groups, 1. healthy controls; 2. fellow eyes of unilaterally affected patients; 3. affected eyes. PhNR responses were measured with skin-electrodes and evoked by the ISCEV standard protocols of PhNR and light-adapted 3.0, referred to as PhNR1 and PhNR2. The correlation coefficients between PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were calculated. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model of PhNR1, with PhNR2 as a predictor, was evaluated after adjusting for correlation between paired eyes.
resultsBoth the amplitude (P = 0.025) and the peak time (P = 0.036) of PhNR1 showed a significant difference among the three eye groups, which was not observed in PhNR2. The four correlation coefficients (Pearson, Intraclass, Lin's and Kendall's) between z-score transformed PhNR1 and PhNR2 measurements were generally moderate: 0.52, 0.52, 0.52, 0.36 for amplitude (P < 0.001), and 0.57, 0.57, 0.57, 0.36 for peak time (P < 0.001). The amplitude of PhNR1 cannot be precisely predicted by PhNR2, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 36.7%, while the peak time of PhNR1 can be precisely predicted with a MAPE of 3.9%.
conclusionsPhNR1 appears to be a more sensitive measure than PhNR2 for detecting eye group differences. Further research is needed to confirm this and explore its clinical applications. PhNR1 may not be entirely replaced by PhNR2 due to moderate correlation and low prediction precision in amplitude.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39710709What 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.