comparison of photopic negative response of full-field and focal electroretinograms in detecting glaucomatous eyes
Clicks: 6
ID: 249198
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
1.5
/100
6 views
5 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #161 of 167 articles by views in chemical reviews
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 167 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the photopic negative response (PhNR) of the full-field electroretinogram (ERG) to the PhNR of the focal ERGs in detecting glaucoma. Methods. One hundred and three eyes with glaucoma and 42 normal eyes were studied. Full-field ERGs were elicited by red stimuli on a blue background. The focal ERGs were elicited by a 15∘ white stimulus spot centered on the macula, the superotemporal or the inferotemporal areas of the macula. Results. In early glaucoma, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were significantly larger for the focal PhNR (0.863–0.924) than those for the full-field PhNR (0.666–0.748) (P<.05). The sensitivity was significantly higher for the focal PhNR than for the full-field PhNR in early (P<.01) and intermediate glaucoma (P<.05). In advanced glaucoma, there was no difference in the AUCs and sensitivities between the focal and full-field PhNRs. Conclusions. The focal ERG has the diagnostic ability with higher sensitivity in detecting early and intermediate glaucoma than the full-field ERG.
Abstract Quality Issue:
This abstract appears to be incomplete or contains metadata (97 words).
Try re-searching for a better abstract.
| Reference Key |
machida2011journalcomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Shigeki Machida;Kunifusa Tamada;Taku Oikawa;Yasutaka Gotoh;Tomoharu Nishimura;Muneyoshi Kaneko;Daijiro Kurosaka |
| Journal | chemical reviews |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
10.1155/2011/564131
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.