Hongting Liu1, Millena G Bittencourt2, Jiangxia Wang3, Raafay Sophie2, Rachel Annam2, Mohamed A Ibrahim4, Yasir J Sepah4, Ahmadreza Moradi2, Hendrik P N Scholl2, Quan Dong Nguyen4. 1. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD ; Visual Science and Optometry Center, People's Hospital of Guanxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, Guangxi province, China. 2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 4. Stanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the retinal sensitivity measurements obtained with two microperimeters, the Micro-Perimeter 1 (MP-1) and the Optos optical coherence tomography (OCT)/scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) in subjects with and without maculopathies. METHODS: Forty-five eyes with no known ocular disease and 47 eyes with maculopathies were examined using both microperimeters. A contrast-adjusted scale was applied to resolve the different stimuli and background luminance existing between the two devices. RESULTS: There was a strong ceiling effect with the MP-1 in the healthy group, with 90.1% (1136 of 1260) test points clustered at 20 dB. The mean sensitivity for the corresponding points in the OCT/SLO was 25.8 ± 1.9 dB. A floor effect was also observed with the OCT/SLO in the maculopathy group with 9.7% (128 of 1316) points clustered at 9-dB values. The corresponding mean sensitivity in the MP-1 was 1.7 ± 3.9 dB. A regression equation between the two microperimeters was established in the common 10 to19 dB intervals as: OCT/SLO = 15.6 + 0.564 × MP-1 - 0.009 × MP-12 + k (k is an individual point constant; MP-1 coefficient P < 0.001; MP-12 coefficient P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The OCT/SLO and the MP-1 provide two different ranges of contrasts for microperimetry examination. Broadening the dynamic range may minimize the constraint of the ceiling and floor effect. There is a significant mathematical relationship in the common interval of the contrast scale. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Applying a unified and broadened dynamic range in different types of microperimeters will help to generate consistent clinical reference for measurements.
PURPOSE: To compare the retinal sensitivity measurements obtained with two microperimeters, the Micro-Perimeter 1 (MP-1) and the Optos optical coherence tomography (OCT)/scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) in subjects with and without maculopathies. METHODS: Forty-five eyes with no known ocular disease and 47 eyes with maculopathies were examined using both microperimeters. A contrast-adjusted scale was applied to resolve the different stimuli and background luminance existing between the two devices. RESULTS: There was a strong ceiling effect with the MP-1 in the healthy group, with 90.1% (1136 of 1260) test points clustered at 20 dB. The mean sensitivity for the corresponding points in the OCT/SLO was 25.8 ± 1.9 dB. A floor effect was also observed with the OCT/SLO in the maculopathy group with 9.7% (128 of 1316) points clustered at 9-dB values. The corresponding mean sensitivity in the MP-1 was 1.7 ± 3.9 dB. A regression equation between the two microperimeters was established in the common 10 to19 dB intervals as: OCT/SLO = 15.6 + 0.564 × MP-1 - 0.009 × MP-12 + k (k is an individual point constant; MP-1 coefficient P < 0.001; MP-12 coefficient P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The OCT/SLO and the MP-1 provide two different ranges of contrasts for microperimetry examination. Broadening the dynamic range may minimize the constraint of the ceiling and floor effect. There is a significant mathematical relationship in the common interval of the contrast scale. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Applying a unified and broadened dynamic range in different types of microperimeters will help to generate consistent clinical reference for measurements.
Authors: Han Joo Cho; Chul Gu Kim; Su Jin Yoo; Sung Won Cho; Dong Won Lee; Jong Woo Kim; Joon H Lee Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Lea D Bennett; Georgiana Metz; Martin Klein; Kirsten G Locke; Areeba Khwaja; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; Giovanni Ometto; Bethany E Higgins; Costanza Iester; Konstantinos Balaskas; Adnan Tufail; Usha Chakravarthy; Ruth E Hogg; David P Crabb Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jacob Jeries Abou-Hanna; Chris A Andrews; Naheed W Khan; David C Musch; K Thiran Jayasundera Journal: Ophthalmic Genet Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 1.274