ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026
Short-term variability of the multifocal ERG in clinical settings.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of repeat testing on N1 and P1 amplitudes, signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios, and amplitude ring ratios (RR) in multifocal electroretinography (mfERG).
methodsThis was a retrospective review of mfERG records from 08/2022 to 05/2023. Patients were tested binocularly with the Espion system (Diagnosys LLC). Only records from patients with repeat mfERG tests at the same appointment were included. N1 and P1 amplitudes, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and amplitude ring ratios were evaluated for the first recording (run #1), the second recording (run #2), and the combination of run #1 and run #2 (combined run).
resultsData was collected for 93 eyes from 47 patients (5 males, 42 females) with a mean patient age of 56.1 ± 17.3 years. No change was observed between run #1 and run #2 for N1 or P1 amplitudes, however amplitudes of the combined run decreased significantly (p < 0.05) compared to run #1 amplitudes for all rings, right and left eyes (except for ring 1 in right eyes). SNR increased significantly from run #1 to run #2 for rings 2-5 (~10%), but not for ring 1. The number of blinks recorded during testing decreased from run #1 to run #2 (p < 0.001). Amplitude ring ratios R5/R4 and R5/R3 did not change significantly from run #1 to run #2, while amplitude R1/R2 ratio decreased significantly (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe change in signal quality from run #1 to run #2 suggests a superior quality signal in the second run. Furthermore, the decreased P1 amplitude in the combined run compared to run #1 should be considered when a clinician uses the combined run for their final report.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41252054What 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.