AIM: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function. METHODS: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery. RESULTS: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.
AIM: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function. METHODS: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery. RESULTS: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.
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