Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich v...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation).

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation). / Poloschek, C. M.; Friede, Tim; Krastel, H. et al.
In: Ophthalmologe, Vol. 99, No. 6, 06.2002, p. 457-463.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Poloschek, CM, Friede, T, Krastel, H & Holz, FG 2002, 'Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation).', Ophthalmologe, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 457-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-001-0568-7

APA

Poloschek, C. M., Friede, T., Krastel, H., & Holz, F. G. (2002). Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation). Ophthalmologe, 99(6), 457-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-001-0568-7

Vancouver

Poloschek CM, Friede T, Krastel H, Holz FG. Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation). Ophthalmologe. 2002 Jun;99(6):457-463. doi: 10.1007/s00347-001-0568-7

Author

Poloschek, C. M. ; Friede, Tim ; Krastel, H. et al. / Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation). In: Ophthalmologe. 2002 ; Vol. 99, No. 6. pp. 457-463.

Bibtex

@article{88b15064494b4360a98da53bdddabd2e,
title = "Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation).",
abstract = "Background. Multifocal electroretinograms (mfERG) were recorded using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and compared to the results from conventional monitor stimulation. Methods. Single and repeated measurements were recorded from 23 normal subjects using the cSLO (Heidelberg Retina Angiograph, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg) as well as a conventional monitor as stimulation devices. Laser power output was modified by various optical filters. The reliability of the method and agreement with the conventional monitor stimulation were determined. Results. CSLO recordings showed a high degree of variability. Reduction of laser power output improved the retinal response topography and characteristically modified response variations with each filter. Differences in amplitude size between cSLO and monitor recordings decreased with increasing amplitude levels. The results of repeated measurements showed considerable variation. Conclusion. It is possible to use a cSLO as a stimulator for mfERG recordings. However, a relatively high degree of variability represents a significant limitation of this method. Appropriate reduction of laser power decreases variations and serves to obtain photopic response topographies.",
keywords = "Multifocal electroretinogram - Scanning laser ophthalmoscope - Fundus monitoring",
author = "Poloschek, {C. M.} and Tim Friede and H. Krastel and Holz, {F. G.}",
year = "2002",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1007/s00347-001-0568-7",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "457--463",
journal = "Ophthalmologe",
issn = "0941-293X",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Das multifokale Elektroretinogramm: Vergleich von Scanning Laser Ophthalmoskop – und Monitorstimulation (The multifocal electroretinogram: comparison of scanning laser ophthalmoscope and monitor stimulation).

AU - Poloschek, C. M.

AU - Friede, Tim

AU - Krastel, H.

AU - Holz, F. G.

PY - 2002/6

Y1 - 2002/6

N2 - Background. Multifocal electroretinograms (mfERG) were recorded using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and compared to the results from conventional monitor stimulation. Methods. Single and repeated measurements were recorded from 23 normal subjects using the cSLO (Heidelberg Retina Angiograph, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg) as well as a conventional monitor as stimulation devices. Laser power output was modified by various optical filters. The reliability of the method and agreement with the conventional monitor stimulation were determined. Results. CSLO recordings showed a high degree of variability. Reduction of laser power output improved the retinal response topography and characteristically modified response variations with each filter. Differences in amplitude size between cSLO and monitor recordings decreased with increasing amplitude levels. The results of repeated measurements showed considerable variation. Conclusion. It is possible to use a cSLO as a stimulator for mfERG recordings. However, a relatively high degree of variability represents a significant limitation of this method. Appropriate reduction of laser power decreases variations and serves to obtain photopic response topographies.

AB - Background. Multifocal electroretinograms (mfERG) were recorded using a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and compared to the results from conventional monitor stimulation. Methods. Single and repeated measurements were recorded from 23 normal subjects using the cSLO (Heidelberg Retina Angiograph, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg) as well as a conventional monitor as stimulation devices. Laser power output was modified by various optical filters. The reliability of the method and agreement with the conventional monitor stimulation were determined. Results. CSLO recordings showed a high degree of variability. Reduction of laser power output improved the retinal response topography and characteristically modified response variations with each filter. Differences in amplitude size between cSLO and monitor recordings decreased with increasing amplitude levels. The results of repeated measurements showed considerable variation. Conclusion. It is possible to use a cSLO as a stimulator for mfERG recordings. However, a relatively high degree of variability represents a significant limitation of this method. Appropriate reduction of laser power decreases variations and serves to obtain photopic response topographies.

KW - Multifocal electroretinogram - Scanning laser ophthalmoscope - Fundus monitoring

U2 - 10.1007/s00347-001-0568-7

DO - 10.1007/s00347-001-0568-7

M3 - Journal article

VL - 99

SP - 457

EP - 463

JO - Ophthalmologe

JF - Ophthalmologe

SN - 0941-293X

IS - 6

ER -