ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Electroretinography With the RM Electrode: Normative Reference Ranges, Variation With Age, and Comparison With the Burian-Allen Electrode.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Applications of Photopic Negative Response: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The RM Electrode is a new, single-use, soft-contact lens electrode for recording the full-field electroretinogram (ffERG). Aims were (1) to define the ffERG reference ranges for the RM Electrode, with age, from healthy volunteers and (2) to compare ffERGs recorded with the RM Electrode and Burian-Allen (BA) electrode. Methods: The ffERGs were recorded using the International Society of Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) standard, including four ISCEV extended protocols: dark-adapted red flash, photopic negative response, ON-OFF, and S-cones. Electroretinogram (ERG) parameters and recording stability, measured from the percent coefficient of variation (%CV), were compared across electrodes. Results: Participants were 40 (19 female) healthy volunteers aged 39.4 ± 15.7 years. Participants' race (white/black/Asian = 58%/20%/18%) and ethnicity (Hispanic = 10%) were congruent with the US 2020 Census. All amplitudes and implicit times followed a log-normal distribution (except photopic b-wave and ON-OFF amplitudes); most parameters varied with age. RM Electrode dark-adapted a-wave and light-adapted b-wave amplitudes were 18% (P = 0.02) and 20% (P < 0.001) larger than the BA electrode; scotopic b-wave amplitudes did not differ. The 30-Hz ERGs were more stable for the RM Electrode (median [interquartile range] %CV = 12.3% [7.6-17.6]) compared with the BA electrode (%CV = 16.7% [12.5-26.8] (P = 0.001). Conclusions: RM Electrode parameters and interflash ERG stability were comparable to or better than those for the BA electrode. Translational Relevance: The derived reference ranges for the RM Electrode allow easy adoption of this disposable contact lens electrode that mitigates possible cross-contamination between patients.
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.