Ian J Murray1, Batul Hassanali, David Carden. 1. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Carys Bannister Building, Dover St, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK, ian.j.murray@manchester.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Macular pigment (MP) might provide some protection against age-related eye disease, and it is now being measured in ophthalmic practice. The purpose of the survey described here was to determine the distribution of MP in a random population of patients in a typical UK ophthalmic practice. METHODS: Macular pigment optical density (MPOD) was measured in 56 patients aged 11 to 87 years, mean 52 ± 19, over a 3-month period. Typically, the test requires setting flicker thresholds for a centrally and peripherally viewed blue/green alternating target. Here we describe the results when an age-based estimate of the peripheral value is used, thus avoiding the peripheral setting. In 32 observers, a comparison was made between this and values obtained with the centre and periphery method. Information on smoking habits, iris colour, diabetic status, and ethnicity were recorded. RESULTS: The overall average MPOD for the population obtained with the centre-only approach for 56 individuals was 0.400 ± 0.165. The centre-only technique was an accurate predictor of values based on centre and peripheral measures, with 95% limits of agreement of 0.137 OD units. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed a high correlation between right and left eyes (r = 0.7 (p < 0.001)). There was a small difference between males and females that did not reach statistical significance (r = -0.22). There was a non-statistically significant age-related decline in MPOD in this particular population (r = -0.17). Dark irides were significantly associated with high MPOD (r = 0.28, p < 0.05). MPOD in Type II diabetic patients was 27% lower than that in non-diabetics (r = 0.29, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The technique provides similar values of MP optical density to previous reports. As with other HFP-based methods, in a small percentage of older patients, more than one measurement is required before satisfactory results are obtained.
BACKGROUND: Macular pigment (MP) might provide some protection against age-related eye disease, and it is now being measured in ophthalmic practice. The purpose of the survey described here was to determine the distribution of MP in a random population of patients in a typical UK ophthalmic practice. METHODS: Macular pigment optical density (MPOD) was measured in 56 patients aged 11 to 87 years, mean 52 ± 19, over a 3-month period. Typically, the test requires setting flicker thresholds for a centrally and peripherally viewed blue/green alternating target. Here we describe the results when an age-based estimate of the peripheral value is used, thus avoiding the peripheral setting. In 32 observers, a comparison was made between this and values obtained with the centre and periphery method. Information on smoking habits, iris colour, diabetic status, and ethnicity were recorded. RESULTS: The overall average MPOD for the population obtained with the centre-only approach for 56 individuals was 0.400 ± 0.165. The centre-only technique was an accurate predictor of values based on centre and peripheral measures, with 95% limits of agreement of 0.137 OD units. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed a high correlation between right and left eyes (r = 0.7 (p < 0.001)). There was a small difference between males and females that did not reach statistical significance (r = -0.22). There was a non-statistically significant age-related decline in MPOD in this particular population (r = -0.17). Dark irides were significantly associated with high MPOD (r = 0.28, p < 0.05). MPOD in Type II diabeticpatients was 27% lower than that in non-diabetics (r = 0.29, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The technique provides similar values of MP optical density to previous reports. As with other HFP-based methods, in a small percentage of older patients, more than one measurement is required before satisfactory results are obtained.
Authors: Rob L P van der Veen; Tos T J M Berendschot; Maria Makridaki; Fred Hendrikse; David Carden; Ian J Murray Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Stuart P Richer; William Stiles; Kelly Graham-Hoffman; Marc Levin; Dennis Ruskin; James Wrobel; Dong-Wouk Park; Carla Thomas Journal: Optometry Date: 2011-11
Authors: J C Khan; D A Thurlby; H Shahid; D G Clayton; J R W Yates; M Bradley; A T Moore; A C Bird Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Cassia Garcia Moraes Pagano; Tais de Campos Moreira; Daniel Sganzerla; Ana Maria Frölich Matzenbacher; Amanda Gomes Faria; Lucas Matturro; Felipe Cezar Cabral; Dimitris Rucks Varvaki Rados; Anelise Decavata Szortyka; Maicon Falavigna; Maria Eulalia Vinadé Chagas; Erno Harzheim; Marcelo Gonçalves; Roberto Umpierre; Aline Lutz de Araujo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240