ArticlePloS one2026
Electroretinography as a non-invasive biomarker for early detection of cognitive impairment in older adults: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive decline and dementia represent a growing global health challenge with an urgent need for accessible biomarkers to support early detection, monitoring, and timely intervention, particularly among marginalized populations who face persistent barriers to equitable access to specialized diagnostic and neurological care. Electroretinography (ERG), a non-invasive measure of retinal electrophysiological activity, has emerged as a potential visual biomarker given the retina's structural and functional homology with the brain. Preliminary studies suggest associations between ERG abnormalities and cognitive impairment; however, the existing evidence base is limited and lacks sufficient consistency and integration to draw clear, definitive conclusions. The primary aim of this scoping review is to systematically characterize and synthesize existing evidence on the utility and efficacy of ERG as a visual biomarker of cognitive change and cognitive status in adults 50 years and over and identify research gaps. Specifically, the review will: (1) characterize study designs, populations, ERG modalities, parameters, and cognitive outcomes; (2) identify ERG components consistently associated with cognitive status or decline; (3) describe strategies for managing ophthalmic and systemic confounders; (4) locate longitudinal studies assessing prognostic or predictive utility; and (5) highlight methodological limitations, reporting gaps, and priority areas for future research. Following the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework, the review will include studies of older adults with cognitive impairment, or dementia, examining ERG modalities such as full-field, pattern, and multifocal ERG. All relevant and completed published studies in English language will be identified from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) without date restrictions. The retrieved records will be managed in EndNote (version 2025), and in accordance with Covidence framework for scoping reviews, three reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data will be charted on study characteristics, ERG parameters, cognitive outcomes, and ERG-cognitive status associations. Collectively, this synthesis will provide clinicians and researchers with consolidated evidence on ERG-cognition relationships, clarify whether the evidence base supports further systematic review or meta-analysis, and generate methodological recommendations for future studies.
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.