PURPOSE: To assess repeatability and reproducibility, to determine normative data, and to investigate the effect of age-related macular disease, compared with normals, on photostress recovery time measured using the Eger Macular Stressometer (EMS). METHOD: The study population comprised 49 healthy eyes of 49 participants. Four EMS measurements were taken in two sessions separated by 1 h by two practitioners, with reversal of order in the second session. EMS readings were also taken from 17 age-related maculopathy (ARM), and 12 age-related macular degeneration (AMD), affected eyes. RESULTS: EMS readings are repeatable to within +/-7 s. There is a statistically significant difference between controls and ARM affected eyes (t = 2.169, p = 0.045), and AMD affected eyes (t = 2.817, p = 0.016). The EMS is highly specific, and demonstrates sensitivity of 29% for ARM, and 50% for AMD. CONCLUSIONS: The EMS may be a useful screening test for ARM, however, direct illumination of the macula of greater intensity and longer duration may yield less variable results.
PURPOSE: To assess repeatability and reproducibility, to determine normative data, and to investigate the effect of age-related macular disease, compared with normals, on photostress recovery time measured using the Eger Macular Stressometer (EMS). METHOD: The study population comprised 49 healthy eyes of 49 participants. Four EMS measurements were taken in two sessions separated by 1 h by two practitioners, with reversal of order in the second session. EMS readings were also taken from 17 age-related maculopathy (ARM), and 12 age-related macular degeneration (AMD), affected eyes. RESULTS: EMS readings are repeatable to within +/-7 s. There is a statistically significant difference between controls and ARM affected eyes (t = 2.169, p = 0.045), and AMD affected eyes (t = 2.817, p = 0.016). The EMS is highly specific, and demonstrates sensitivity of 29% for ARM, and 50% for AMD. CONCLUSIONS: The EMS may be a useful screening test for ARM, however, direct illumination of the macula of greater intensity and longer duration may yield less variable results.
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: Jan Mitchell; James S Wolffsohn; Alison Woodcock; Stephen J Anderson; Carolyn V McMillan; Timothy Ffytche; Martin Rubinstein; Winfried Amoaku; Clare Bradley Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-04-14 Impact factor: 3.186
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