Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40212932›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Diagnostic Performance of a Handheld Electroretinography Test for Glaucoma.

Anika Kumar, Nathan Sanchez, Alan W Kong, Benjamin F Arnold, Yvonne Ou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anika KumarSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Nathan SanchezSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Alan W KongDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Benjamin F ArnoldDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Yvonne OuDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, California.

Funding

Rapid-Prototyping and Design CoreP30EY002162 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LAMBA, DEEPAK ASHOK · 1985 to 2024
$16.8M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY002162
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a sinusoidal flicker stimulus test at various frequencies using a handheld electroretinography (ERG) device in glaucoma versus control participants. Design: A cross-sectional study conducted between June 2019 and October 2022 at the University of California, San Francisco. Participants: Participants with glaucoma were recruited from glaucoma clinics if they had a diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma, as demonstrated by optic nerve damage or reproducible visual field defects. Control participants had normal optic nerves and intraocular pressures of ≤21 mmHg and were recruited from optometry clinics. Methods: The RETeval device (LKC Technologies), a handheld ERG recording system, was used to administer a sinusoidal flicker stimulus modulated at 14 frequencies from 1 to 50 Hz, and the first harmonic frequency response amplitudes were collected. Logistic regression models with glaucoma diagnosis as the outcome were trained using data from 67% of participants; models were then tested on the remaining 33%. Main Outcome Measures: Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrating model performance on the testing set were generated, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated. The improved DeLong algorithm was used to compare diagnostic performance of the models and differences in performance in dilated versus nondilated eyes. Results: The study included 117 eyes from 72 participants (18 control, 54 glaucoma; mean age [standard deviation {SD}] = 70.4 [12.2] years; 51.4% female). Among glaucomatous eyes, average (SD) mean deviation was -4.61 (5.55) decibels. In a model assessing the combined effects of amplitude responses across all frequencies, the AUC was 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.78). However, in a model focusing on frequencies of ≥30 Hz, where the OFF pathway may be more affected, the AUC improved to 0.81 (95% CI: 0.66-0.97). In this higher frequency model, sensitivity was 80% and specificity was 74% at the Youden J cutoff. Conclusions: These findings provide evidence of the potential use of handheld ERG in diagnosing glaucoma by assessing retinal amplitude responses to sinusoidal flicker stimuli at frequencies between 30 and 50 Hz. This supports the hypothesis that the OFF pathway may be more vulnerable in glaucoma. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Diagnostic performanceElectroretinographyGlaucomaSinusoidal flicker

Identifiers

PMID40212932
PMCPMC11985038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.