ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a wireless electroretinogram recording system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Enhancing Clinical Full-Field Electroretinograms by Reducing Powerline Noise Using Pre-Amplified Electrodes.Translational vision science & technology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A novel device consisting of amplifiers, an analogue-digital converter, offset correction units, and a microcontroller with Bluetooth wireless functionality was fabricated. Electroretinography (ERG) recordings were captured in dark-adapted and light-adapted full-field flash stimulations in an anaesthetised animal model using the novel wireless system. Recordings were repeated using a standard ERG recording setup of the Espion E3 system for comparison. The electroretinogram signal a-wave and b-wave amplitudes, peak times, signal offset, potential drift, and power line noise were compared between the recording setups. Signals from the novel system were found to have similar waveforms to those recorded from the standard ERG setup. There were no significant differences in the a-wave amplitudes (P > 0.43), a-wave peak times (P > 0.61) and b-wave peak times (P > 0.55). The offset potential drift when using the novel system was significantly smaller than the reference system (P < 0.02). The novel system also showed stronger resilience against powerline noise interference, as evidenced by a statistically significant performance increase during recordings with substantial noise interference (P < 0.01). The on-source signal processing and wireless transmission can improve the quality of recorded ERG signals. Our study demonstrates a proof of concept for performing wireless ERG recordings, which enhance the performance by reducing noise and potential drift in the recorded signals.
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.