ArticlePloS one2025
Repeatability of flicker modulation sensitivity measured using the Flicker-Plus test.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the test-retest variability of the Flicker-Plus test for each of the two protocols measuring rod and cone-enhanced flicker modulation thresholds (FMT) in healthy individuals. A secondary aim was to evaluate the within-subject variability in repeated measurements.
methodsThirty healthy participants aged 19-71 years were examined. None had any history or signs of ocular disease. Monocular FMT were measured at the fovea (0°) and at an eccentricity of 5° in each quadrant, twice by the same investigator under identical conditions within a 2-week period under stimulus conditions that favoured either rods or cones to evaluate the between session repeatability. To assess the within-subject variability, binocular measurements for cone and rod-enhanced FMT were carried out on 15 different occasions over a period of 3-weeks in three of the participants. Coefficient of Repeatability (CoR) was calculated for inter-session repeatability and Bland Altman plots were created for graphical representation. Inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated.
resultsBland and Altman analysis shows that the mean bias is greater than zero in all 5 testing locations for both rod and cone-enhanced FMTs, suggesting that the threshold at the second visit tended to be lower than at the first, however the difference between visits was not statistically significant for any test condition (paired t-test, p < 0.05). In a sub analysis for those CoR was found to be higher in those aged <45years, compared to those aged ≥45 years. The correlation and agreement between the two measurements estimated by ICC analysis shows good (0.75-0.9) to excellent (>0.9) test-retest reliability of Flicker-Plus test for all measures.
conclusionThe findings show good to excellent test-retest repeatability for the Flicker-Plus test. This was the case at all locations (foveal and peripheral), under both cone and rod-enhanced conditions. There was no evidence of significant learning effects.
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.