ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
The impacts of different eyes, individual differences, and different time points in healthy rats on the variability of visual electrophysiological examination indicators.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This article discussed the repeatability and coefficient of variation (CV) of flash visual evoked potential (FVEP) and full-field electroretinogram (ffERG) indicators of different eyes, individuals, and time points of normal male Sprague-Dawley rats, providing a reference for selecting a reasonable control scheme for retinal and optic nerve disease rat models. Methods: Twenty normal 6-8 week Sprague-Dawley rats were selected, from which 10 randomly chosen rats underwent ffERG examination and the other 10 underwent FVEP examination. At different time points (1 d, 7 d), Roland visual electrophysiological device was utilized to record in FVEP P2 peak time and N2-P2 amplitude, peak time and amplitude of dark-adapted 0.01 ERG b-wave, peak time and amplitude of dark-adapted 3.0 ERG a- and b-waves, OPs OS2 amplitude, peak time and amplitude of light-adapted 3.0 ERG a- and b-waves, and N1-P1 amplitude of light-adapted 3.0 flash ERG. Meanwhile, we also analyzed the mean ± standard deviation, range, and CV, as well as compared mean ± standard deviation, range, and CV values between two eyes of the same rat and monocular results before and after intervention. Results: Stable waveforms could be recorded for each rat. Among them, the smallest CV was obtained at the peak time of the FVEP P2 wave (10.1%), while that of amplitude in the VEP P2 wave was relatively large (41.2%). In the ffERG examination, the CV value at each peak time was relatively small (12.9% -39.8%), while the CV value for each wave amplitude was relatively large (33.4% -93.5%). In each waveform, the lower the amplitude, the greater the CV value. By comparing the three control schemes, the CV at the P2 peak time of FVEP examination generated using the baseline ratio approach was the smallest, and that of amplitude calculated using the absolute value approach was the smallest. In the ffERG examination, except for the light-adapted 3.0 ERG a-wave with the lowest CV obtained by the baseline ratio method (57.7%), the CV values of the other examination items were as follows: OD/OS ratio method<absolute value method<baseline ratio method. The CV at each peak time generated by the baseline ratio method was the highest. Conclusion: In normal adult male Sprague-Dawley rats, the optic nerve function assessment at P2 wave peak time in FVEP is the most stable, and the CV of N2-P2 amplitude is relatively large. During retinal function assessment by ffERG, the detection error for different eyes of the same individual<different individuals<different time points, which can be reduced using a reasonable control scheme.
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.