Observational studyDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2025
The role of pattern electroretinogram and pattern visual-evoked potentials in ocular hypertension.
Observational study 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and patterned visual evoked potential (PVEP) between ocular hypertension (OHT) and normal subjects.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study included two groups: a control group (46 eyes from 23 subjects; mean age, 33.83 ± 9.10 years old) and an OHT group (34 eyes from 17 patients; mean age, 36.75 ± 11.00 years old). All OHT patients had normal visual fields and normal optic disc appearances but had elevated intraocular pressures. The PERG was recorded using counter-phasing 48' checkerboard patterns, and amplitudes and latencies of P50 and N95 were documented. The PVEP was recorded using checkerboard pattern reversal stimuli with large 60' and small 15' check sizes, and the amplitudes and latencies of the P100 peaks were documented. Group differences were compared, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of these parameters.
resultsThe peak latencies of P50 and N95 in the PERG were significantly prolonged in the OHT group compared to the control group (p = 0.002 and p = 0.041, respectively), while the amplitudes of P50 and N95 were significantly reduced (p < 0.001 for both). Regarding PVEP results, the P100 peak latencies for both 60' check and 15' check stimuli were significantly longer in the OHT group (p < 0.001 for both), and the P100 amplitudes were significantly lower (p = 0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively). Furthermore, the P50 and N95 amplitudes in PERG, and the P100 peak latency in PVEP, all demonstrated good diagnostic ability (AUC > 0.8, p < 0.001).
conclusionAbnormalities in PERG and PVEP amplitudes and timing were detected in OHT patients. The P50 and N95 amplitudes in PERG, as well as the P100 peak latency in PVEP, exhibited good ability to differentiate OHT patients from normal subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40783894What 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.