|
| Authors | Year | Type of study | Patients /ERG | Eyes /ERG | Disease severity | ISCEV Standard | Rod ERG amplitude | Rod ERG peak time | Mixed ERG amplitude | Mixed ERG peak time | Photopic b-wave amplitude | Photopic b-wave peak time | Flicker ERG amplitude | Flicker ERG peak time | Note 1 | Note 2 |
|
|
Kaplan and Aaberg [20] | 1980 | Case reports | 4 | 8 | Low/
variable | | | | ↓ | → | N | N | | | Method is unclear | |
|
| Gass [8] | 1981 | Cross-sectional | 11/10 | 22/20 | Variable | | | | | | | | | | No detailed breakdown of ERG changes by stimulus/parameters | Abnormal rod and cone ERGs in all 10 patients |
|
| Fuerst et al. [29] | 1984 | Cross-sectional | 9/6 | 18/10 | Variable | | ↓↓ | → | | | ↓ | → | ↓ | → → | Good ERG method | |
|
| Priem et al. [21] | 1988 | Cross-sectional | 16 |
32 ? | Variable | | | | | | | | | | Poor ERG method, few details | b-wave/a-wave ratio correlated with vasculopathy |
|
| Godel et al. [22] | 1989 | Case reports | 2 | 4 | Severe/
moderate | | ↓ | | ↓ | → | | | | | Few ERG method details | ERG got worse with disease progression |
|
| Hirose et al. [30] | 1991 | Cross-sectional | 15 | 28 | Variable | | | | ↓ | | ↓↓↓ | | ↓↓ | | Good ERG method, each ERG component affected to a different degree | |
|
| Fich and Rosenberg [31] | 1992 | Case reports | 2 | 4 | Severe | | | | ↓↓ | → → | | | ↓↓ | → → | Few ERG details | |
|
| Gasch et al. [32] | 1999 | Cross-sectional | 59/22 | ??/44 ? | Variable | | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | | No detailed breakdown of ERG changes by stimulus/parameters | Equal reduction in rod and cone responses claimed |
|
| Oh et al. [33] | 2002 | Cross-sectional | 19/14 | ??/28 ? | Variable | ? | ↓↓ | | ↓↓ | | ↓ | | | | ERG 30 Hz flicker not done | b-wave/a-wave ratio ↓ initially, then overall decrease |
|
| Zacks et al. [23] | 2002 | Cross-sectional and follow-up | 15 | 30 | Variable | Yes | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | → → | Correlated 7 ERG parameters with ability to taper immunosuppressive Rx | 30 Hz flicker time was the best |
|
| Holder et al. [24] | 2005 | Cross-sectional and follow-up | 18 | 36 | Variable | Yes | | | | | | | | | 30 Hz flicker amplitude and time most sensitive | ERG classified only as normal/abnormal |
|
| Sobrin et al. [25] | 2005 | Cross-sectional and follow-up | 23 | 46 | Variable | Yes | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | → → | The authors state that most sensitive parameters are unclear | Tables 2, 5 and Figure 4 suggest 30 Hz flicker; time most affected |
|
| Kiss et al. [34] | 2005 | Cross-sectional and follow-up | 28 | 56 | Variable | Yes | | | ↓ | | | | | → → | Only 2 ERG parameters monitored: mixed amplitude and flicker time | |
|
| Sobrin et al. [35] | 2008 | Cross-sectional and follow-up with Rx | 8 | 16 | Variable | Yes | ↓ | | ↓ | | ↓ | | | → → | Reported numeric values for only 2 ERG parameters: 30 Hz time and max amplitude | Too few patients for statistics |
|
| Thorne et al. [13] | 2008 | Cross-sectional and follow-up | 55/24 | 109/48 | Variable | ? | | | | | | | | | No detailed breakdown of ERG changes by stimulus/parameters | 79% had abnormal ERG |
|
| Rush et al. [26] | 2011 | Rx follow-up | 19 | 32 | Variable | Yes | | | | | | | ↓ | → → | Used flicker ERG for follow-up, amplitude, and PT | Only ERG flicker reported; no statistics |
|
| Artornsombudh et al. [27] | 2013 | Rx follow-up | 22 | 44 | Variable | Yes | | | | | | | | | Used flicker ERG time for follow-up as part of the definition of relapse/inflammation control | No ERG statistics |
|
| Cervantes-Castañeda et al. [28] | 2013 | Rx follow-up | 49 | 98 | Variable | Yes | | | | | | | | | Used flicker ERG amplitude and time for follow-up | Time is more sensitive than amplitude |
|
| Doycheva et al. [36] | 2014 | Rx follow-up | 24/21 | 48/42 | Variable | Yes | | | | | | | | | Used mixed flicker ERG for follow-up | No change in ERG parameters; effective Rx? |
|
