PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of the Eger Macular Stressometer (EMS) for early screening of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in a clinical practice. We examined the null hypothesis that AMD eyes have EMS recovery times (RTs) that do not differ from eyes with cataract, diabetic retinopathy, or glaucoma. DESIGN: The design of this study was a nonrandomized clinical trial. METHODS: Ninety-two eyes from 92 patients with vision 20/80 or better, age 50 and older, of either gender, and any ethnic origin, were recruited into one of four groups: AMD (30 eyes), normal or mild cataract (30 eyes), diabetic retinopathy (16 eyes), and glaucoma (16 eyes). Recovery times were obtained with the EMS, according to manufacturer's instructions. RESULTS: The mean (SD) [median] RT for the AMD group was 11.8 (7.6) [9] seconds, the normal/cataract group 10.0 (4.3) [9] seconds, the diabetic retinopathy group 8.4 (3.0) [8] seconds, and glaucoma group 8.6 (2.4) [8] seconds. Recovery time did not appear to be related to group (P =.58), age (P =.50), visual acuity (P =.52), or sex (P =.23). CONCLUSIONS: We found EMS RT distributions did not differ between AMD, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma groups. The EMS in its current form is not a sensitive screening tool for AMD. Further testing is needed to examine EMS sensitivity with other macular diseases such as central serous choroidopathy and diabetic macular edema.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of the Eger Macular Stressometer (EMS) for early screening of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in a clinical practice. We examined the null hypothesis that AMD eyes have EMS recovery times (RTs) that do not differ from eyes with cataract, diabetic retinopathy, or glaucoma. DESIGN: The design of this study was a nonrandomized clinical trial. METHODS: Ninety-two eyes from 92 patients with vision 20/80 or better, age 50 and older, of either gender, and any ethnic origin, were recruited into one of four groups: AMD (30 eyes), normal or mild cataract (30 eyes), diabetic retinopathy (16 eyes), and glaucoma (16 eyes). Recovery times were obtained with the EMS, according to manufacturer's instructions. RESULTS: The mean (SD) [median] RT for the AMD group was 11.8 (7.6) [9] seconds, the normal/cataract group 10.0 (4.3) [9] seconds, the diabetic retinopathy group 8.4 (3.0) [8] seconds, and glaucoma group 8.6 (2.4) [8] seconds. Recovery time did not appear to be related to group (P =.58), age (P =.50), visual acuity (P =.52), or sex (P =.23). CONCLUSIONS: We found EMS RT distributions did not differ between AMD, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma groups. The EMS in its current form is not a sensitive screening tool for AMD. Further testing is needed to examine EMS sensitivity with other macular diseases such as central serous choroidopathy and diabetic macular edema.
Authors: J S Wolffsohn; S J Anderson; J Mitchell; A Woodcock; M Rubinstein; T Ffytche; A Browning; K Willbond; W M Amoaku; C Bradley Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: John D Rodriguez; Keith Lane; David A Hollander; Aron Shapiro; Sunita Saigal; Andrew J Hertsenberg; Garrick Wallstrom; Divya Narayanan; Endri Angjeli; Mark B Abelson Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-27