PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of the amount of macular pigment (MPOD) is necessary to investigate the role of carotenoids and their assumed protective functions. High repeatability and reliability are important to monitor patients in studies investigating the influence of diet and supplements on MPOD. We evaluated the Macuscope (Macuvision Europe Ltd., Lapworth, Solihull, UK), a recently introduced device for measuring MPOD using the technique of heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP). We determined agreement with another HFP device (QuantifEye; MPS 9000 series: Tinsley Precision Instruments Ltd., Croydon, Essex, UK) and a fundus reflectance method. METHODS: The right eyes of 23 healthy subjects (mean age 33.9 ± 15.1 years) were measured. We determined agreement with QuantifEye and correlation with a fundus reflectance method. Repeatability of QuantifEye was assessed in 20 other healthy subjects (mean age 32.1 ± 7.3 years). Repeatability was also compared with measurements by a fundus reflectance method in 10 subjects. RESULTS: We found low agreement between test and retest measurements with Macuscope. The average difference and the limits of agreement were -0.041 ± 0.32. We found high agreement between test and retest measurements of QuantifEye (-0.02 ± 0.18) and the fundus reflectance method (-0.04 ± 0.18). MPOD data obtained by Macuscope and QuantifEye showed poor agreement: -0.017 ± 0.44. For Macuscope and the fundus reflectance method, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.05 (P = 0.83). A significant correlation of r = 0.87 (P<0.001) was found between QuantifEye and the fundus reflectance method. CONCLUSIONS: Because repeatability of Macuscope measurements was low (ie, wide limits of agreement) and MPOD values correlated poorly with the fundus reflectance method, and agreed poorly with QuantifEye, the tested Macuscope protocol seems less suitable for studying MPOD.
PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of the amount of macular pigment (MPOD) is necessary to investigate the role of carotenoids and their assumed protective functions. High repeatability and reliability are important to monitor patients in studies investigating the influence of diet and supplements on MPOD. We evaluated the Macuscope (Macuvision Europe Ltd., Lapworth, Solihull, UK), a recently introduced device for measuring MPOD using the technique of heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP). We determined agreement with another HFP device (QuantifEye; MPS 9000 series: Tinsley Precision Instruments Ltd., Croydon, Essex, UK) and a fundus reflectance method. METHODS: The right eyes of 23 healthy subjects (mean age 33.9 ± 15.1 years) were measured. We determined agreement with QuantifEye and correlation with a fundus reflectance method. Repeatability of QuantifEye was assessed in 20 other healthy subjects (mean age 32.1 ± 7.3 years). Repeatability was also compared with measurements by a fundus reflectance method in 10 subjects. RESULTS: We found low agreement between test and retest measurements with Macuscope. The average difference and the limits of agreement were -0.041 ± 0.32. We found high agreement between test and retest measurements of QuantifEye (-0.02 ± 0.18) and the fundus reflectance method (-0.04 ± 0.18). MPOD data obtained by Macuscope and QuantifEye showed poor agreement: -0.017 ± 0.44. For Macuscope and the fundus reflectance method, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.05 (P = 0.83). A significant correlation of r = 0.87 (P<0.001) was found between QuantifEye and the fundus reflectance method. CONCLUSIONS: Because repeatability of Macuscope measurements was low (ie, wide limits of agreement) and MPOD values correlated poorly with the fundus reflectance method, and agreed poorly with QuantifEye, the tested Macuscope protocol seems less suitable for studying MPOD.
Authors: Rob L P van der Veen; Tos T J M Berendschot; Fred Hendrikse; David Carden; Maria Makridaki; Ian J Murray Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: J M Stringham; B R Hammond; J M Nolan; B R Wooten; A Mammen; W Smollon; D M Snodderly Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Robin G Abell; Alex W Hewitt; Marko Andric; Penelope L Allen; Nitin Verma Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2014-01-05 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Anna V Zarubina; Carrie E Huisingh; Mark E Clark; Kenneth R Sloan; Gerald McGwin; Jason N Crosson; Christine A Curcio; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 2.424