ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2025
Evaluating the repeatability of the multifocal electroretinogram in the cone dominant 13-lined ground squirrel.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the repeatability of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) in the 13-lined ground squirrel (13-LGS).
methods13-LGS (Ictidomys tridecemlineatus, 2 M/4F, n = 12 eyes) were equally divided between 61-segment or 103-segment protocols containing two consecutive mfERG scans per session, and two total sessions performed one week apart per eye. The trough-to-peak amplitudes were analyzed under three conditions: raw, normalized to the optic nerve head (ONH), and normalized to the visual streak (VS). For intrasession repeatability, the two consecutive scans within each session were analyzed. For intersession repeatability analyses, one scan was randomly chosen from each day.
resultsIntrasession repeatability of the mfERG trough-to-peak amplitude data averaged at 63% (Raw), 55% (ONH), and 50% (VS). There was no significant difference in repeatability between each day's intrasession repeatability values for all normalization conditions (Raw: Wilcoxon t-test, p = 0.2334; ONH: Paired t-test, p = 0.7803; VS: Wilcoxon t-test, p = 0.3804). Intersession percent repeatability of mfERG trough-to-peak amplitude data averaged at 72% (Raw), 61% (ONH), and 53% (VS). There was a statistically significant difference between the groups (Friedman test, p = 0.0038). This was evident in the Benjamini-Hochberg method of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) where there was a significant difference comparing Raw versus VS (p = 0.0130) and ONH versus VS (p = 0.0011). There was no difference comparing Raw versus ONH (p = 0.1076).
conclusionsOverall intrasession and intersession repeatability of mfERG amplitude was relatively poor in our sample, though not markedly different than that reported in some other species and normalization methods did result in improved repeatability. As animal models are critical for vision research, these repeatability estimates will prove useful in interpreting future data collected following interventions or in longitudinal monitoring of disease models.
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.