ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2026
Intra- and inter-examiner reliability of ERGs recorded with two types of skin electrodes.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether the intra-examiner and the inter-examiner reliabilities of the implicit times and amplitudes of the ERGs differed when recorded with two different types of skin electrodes. SUBJECTS AND
methodsEleven subjects (5 men and 6 women) were studied. The RETeval system was used to record ERGs, and the Sensor Strip of the RETeval system or the Red Dot electrocardiography electrodes (Red Dot) were used to record the ERGs. Flicker ERGs were recorded with a natural pupil. To test the intra-examiner reliability, one examiner positioned electrodes and recorded the ERGs three times on three different days from each subject. For the inter-examiner reliability, three different examiners recorded the ERGs from the 11 subjects. The implicit times and amplitudes of the flicker ERGs were analyzed using one-way intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC (1,1)) to assess intra-examiner variability and using a two-way intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC (2,1)) for inter-examiner variability.
resultsFor implicit times both the ICC (1,1) and ICC (2,1) were > 0.8 for both electrode types. For the amplitude, ICC (1,1) was > 0.8 for both electrodes, but the ICC (2,1) was lower at 0.474 for the Sensor Strip and 0.672 for the Red Dot electrodes. After Benjamini-Hochberg adjustments, the amplitudes did not differ between electrodes in either setting; implicit time was slightly shorter with the Red Dot than with Sensor Strip in the three-examiner setting (BH-adjusted P = 0.032; mean difference, 0.13 ms).
conclusionThe intra-examiner reliability was high for both types of electrodes, but the inter-examiner reliability indicated that the amplitudes of the ERGs tended to be less reliable for both types of electrodes. We conclude that standardizing the electrode placement and ensuring precise applications may help improve inter-examiner reproducibility, especially for the amplitude measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.