Variability of full-field electroretinogram responses in subjects without diffuse photoreceptor cell disease☆
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Electroretinography data were collected prospectively from 66 subjects participating in a study sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. In this study, ERG recordings were used as an objective measure of retinal function in monitoring any possible ill-effects from the use of proton pump and nonproton pump medications for gastroesophageal reflux disease, including Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. All except 7 subjects participating in the study had a normal ERG at baseline. Subjects were excluded if
Results
The threshold criteria for significant change (with 95% confidence) in implicit time and for a decrease or an increase in ERG amplitude in response to different stimuli are shown in Table 1. Results for each eye were determined separately and then combined.
Values from each eye were used to determine a range of test–retest variability. For the dark-adapted ERG stimuli, a decrease in amplitude was significant if it declined by 40% for the rod-isolated blue flash, 35% for the rod-dominant white
Discussion
Test–retest variability has not, to our knowledge, previously been published regarding subjects with no known retinal pathologic features. Our results, however, can only be compared with the limited information available from earlier studies on patients. In a prospective, natural history study in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) or cone–rod dystrophy,3 intervisit variability was measured in a subset of 29 randomly selected patients who were tested twice within a 2-month period. They
References (9)
- et al.
Natural course of retinitis pigmentosa over a three-year interval
Am J Ophthalmol
(1985) - et al.
Yearly rates of rod and cone functional loss in retinitis pigmentosa and cone-rod dystrophy
Ophthalmology
(1999) - Marmor MF, Zrenner E. Standard for clinical electroretinography (1999 update). International Society for Clinical...
- et al.
A randomized trial of vitamin A and vitamin E supplementation for retinitis pigmentosa
Arch Ophthalmol
(1993)
Cited by (48)
A critical review: Psychophysical assessments of diabetic retinopathy
2021, Survey of OphthalmologyCitation Excerpt :It requires specially trained examiners and expensive equipment. The test results can be variable between laboratories because of variations in test setting and instructions, as well as challenges in the analyses that may require subjective manipulations.24,34,60,78,79,102 The procedure is also time consuming as the subject may need to be light or dark-adapted, which can take up to 60 minutes depending on the protocols.
Plexus-specific retinal vascular anatomy and pathologies as seen by projection-resolved optical coherence tomographic angiography
2021, Progress in Retinal and Eye ResearchCitation Excerpt :Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a hereditary retinal disease (Hartong et al., 2006) and a leading cause of blindness for people under 60. Progression can be monitored by electroretinogram and VF (Grover et al., 2003; Holopigian et al., 1996), but both of these tests have low repeatability (Bittner et al., 2011; Grover et al., 2003). Measurements of the ellipsoidal zone area from structural OCT, which has better repeatability, is also be used to monitor RP progression (Hariri et al., 2016).
The melanopsin-directed white noise electroretinogram (wnERG)
2019, Vision ResearchCitation Excerpt :The inter-session standard error of the mean (SEM) for the implicit times of the wnERG components in one representative observer ranged from 1.2 to 3.1 ms (similar in other observers), consistent with inter-individual variability reported in wnERGs and flash ERGs (Zele et al., 2017). The SEMs are also less than the proposed threshold criterion of 4.3 ms used for detecting a significant change in the light adapted flash ERG implicit times (Grover, Fishman, Birch, Locke, & Rosner, 2003). The ERG set up was conducted according to the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) standards (McCulloch et al., 2015).
- ☆
Manuscript no. 220031
The authors have no proprietary interest.
Supported by the Foundation Fighting Blindness, Hunt Valley, Maryland; the Grant Healthcare Foundation, Chicago, Illinois; the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (core grant no.: EYO1792); and Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York.