PURPOSE: To evaluate test-retest variability in electroretinogram (ERG) responses in subjects without evidence of diffuse photoreceptor cell disease. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty subjects without diffuse photoreceptor cell disease. METHODS: Serial ERGs were performed on 40 subjects (mean age at the time of first ERG: 54 years; range: 38-75 years) over a period of 2 to 6 years. These subjects participated in a study by a pharmaceutical company investigating the effects of certain drugs, used for gastrointestinal disorders, on retinal function. None of the subjects showed any evidence of progressive change in retinal function related to the medications. The ERG responses that were evaluated included amplitudes and implicit times for the dark-adapted rod-isolated and rod-dominant responses, light-adapted single flash response, and both light- and dark-adapted 31-Hz flicker responses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The data were analyzed by using analysis of variance methods, and a threshold criteria for significant change with 95% confidence was calculated for implicit times and an increase or decrease in ERG amplitudes. RESULTS: The threshold for significant change varied depending on the ERG stimulus. For the dark-adapted stimuli, a significant decrease in amplitude varied from 35% to 42% as compared with a variation of 53% to 73% for a significant increase. For the light-adapted stimuli, a significant decrease in amplitude varied by 52% as compared with a variation of 109% to 110% for a significant increase. The threshold for significant change for implicit times varied from 3.0 milliseconds to 8.7 milliseconds. CONCLUSIONS: The measured test-retest variability in ERG amplitudes and implicit times in subjects without diffuse photoreceptor cell disease underscores the importance of conducting similar comprehensive studies of variability in patients with acquired and hereditary retinal diseases. These data are also of value for monitoring disease progression and in future therapeutic trials.
PURPOSE: To evaluate test-retest variability in electroretinogram (ERG) responses in subjects without evidence of diffuse photoreceptor cell disease. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty subjects without diffuse photoreceptor cell disease. METHODS: Serial ERGs were performed on 40 subjects (mean age at the time of first ERG: 54 years; range: 38-75 years) over a period of 2 to 6 years. These subjects participated in a study by a pharmaceutical company investigating the effects of certain drugs, used for gastrointestinal disorders, on retinal function. None of the subjects showed any evidence of progressive change in retinal function related to the medications. The ERG responses that were evaluated included amplitudes and implicit times for the dark-adapted rod-isolated and rod-dominant responses, light-adapted single flash response, and both light- and dark-adapted 31-Hz flicker responses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The data were analyzed by using analysis of variance methods, and a threshold criteria for significant change with 95% confidence was calculated for implicit times and an increase or decrease in ERG amplitudes. RESULTS: The threshold for significant change varied depending on the ERG stimulus. For the dark-adapted stimuli, a significant decrease in amplitude varied from 35% to 42% as compared with a variation of 53% to 73% for a significant increase. For the light-adapted stimuli, a significant decrease in amplitude varied by 52% as compared with a variation of 109% to 110% for a significant increase. The threshold for significant change for implicit times varied from 3.0 milliseconds to 8.7 milliseconds. CONCLUSIONS: The measured test-retest variability in ERG amplitudes and implicit times in subjects without diffuse photoreceptor cell disease underscores the importance of conducting similar comprehensive studies of variability in patients with acquired and hereditary retinal diseases. These data are also of value for monitoring disease progression and in future therapeutic trials.
Authors: Ingrid U Scott; Allison R Edwards; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Clement K Chan; Michael J Elman; Scott M Friedman; Craig Michael Greven; Raj K Maturi; Dante J Pieramici; Michel Shami; Lawrence J Singerman; Cynthia R Stockdale Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: R Hamilton; A Al Abdlseaed; J Healey; M M Neveu; L Brown; D Keating; V A McBain; D Sculfor; D A Thompson Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Ahmed M Hagag; Jie Wang; Kevin Lu; Gareth Harman; Richard G Weleber; David Huang; Paul Yang; Mark E Pennesi; Yali Jia Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Virginia Miraldi Utz; Wanda Pfeifer; Susannah Q Longmuir; Richard John Olson; Kai Wang; Arlene V Drack Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: David G Birch; Kirsten G Locke; Yuquan Wen; Kelly I Locke; Dennis R Hoffman; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Tharikarn Sujirakul; Michael K Lin; Jimmy Duong; Ying Wei; Sara Lopez-Pintado; Stephen H Tsang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 5.258