ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Test-retest variability of the full-field stimulus test in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: REPEAT Study Report No. 4.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Full-Field Stimulus Threshold: A Key Functional Outcome Measure in Retinal Diseases and Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Electroretinographic patterns of retinitis pigmentosa in a Palestinian cohort: a clinical and functional characterization.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Test-retest variability of the full-field stimulus test in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: REPEAT Study Report No. 4.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- CRB1 -Associated Inherited Retinal Dystrophies: Prospective Natural History Study With 4 Years of Follow-Up.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate test-retest variability (TRV) of the full-field stimulus test (FST) in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and poor best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; ≤20/50 Snellen; ≥0.40 logMAR), and to assess the reliability of FST as a clinical endpoint in future RP trials.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 28 patients with clinically diagnosed RP performed FST (Diagnosys) on two different days, 2 weeks apart. Retinal sensitivity estimates on FST for blue, red, and white stimuli were determined, and the difference between blue and red thresholds was calculated to identify photoreceptor mediation type. TRV was analysed using Bland-Altman analyses and coefficients of repeatability (CoRs).
resultsPatients had a median age of 38.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 24.5-57.5), and a median BCVA of 1.1 logMAR (IQR: 0.6-1.2). Following Bland-Altman analyses, learning effects (biases) across the FST measurements were minimal, ranging from -0.02 to 0.02 log units. The CoRs were ± 0.38 log units (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.52) for blue stimuli, ±0.30 log units (95%CI: 0.23-0.40) for red stimuli, ±0.59 log units (95%CI: 0.47-0.81) for white stimuli, and ± 0.30 log units (95%CI: 0.24-0.41) for the blue-red difference. Patients with mixed photoreceptor mediation had a higher TRV than those with rod or cone mediation. Age was a significant predictor of TRV on blue light FST (p = 0.028).
conclusionsThese findings support the use of FST as a reliable measurement of retinal sensitivity in patients with RP, and provide a strong foundation for developing clinical endpoints for FST based on the CoRs to improve assessment of changes in RP, for example, before and after treatment.
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.