Pete R Jones1, Narmella Yasoubi2, Marko Nardini3, Gary S Rubin1. 1. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom 2National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom. 2. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom. 3. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom 3Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the feasibility of macular integrity assessment (MAIA) microperimetry (MP) in children. Also to establish representative outcome measures (differential light sensitivity, fixation stability, test-retest reliability) for children without visual impairment. Methods: Thirty-three adults and 33 children (9-12 years) were asked to perform three monocular MAIA examinations within a single session (dominant eye only). Results: Children exhibited poorer test-retest reliability than adults for measures of both mean sensitivity (95% coefficient of repeatability [CoR95] = 2.7 vs. 2.3 dB, P = 0.036) and pointwise sensitivity (CoR95 = 6.2 vs. 5.7 dB, P < 0.001). Mean sensitivity was lower in children (27.6 vs. 29.5 dB, P < 0.001), and fixation stability was poorer (95% bivariate contour ellipse area [BCEA95] = 4.58 vs. 1.14, P < 0.001). Mean sensitivity was negatively correlated with fixation stability (r = -0.44, P < 0.001). Both children and adults exhibited substantial practice effects, with mean sensitivity improving by 0.5 dB (adults) and 0.9 dB (children) between examinations 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.017). There were no significant differences between examinations 2 and 3 (P ≥ 0.374). Conclusions: Microperimetry is feasible in 9- to 12-year-old children. However, systematically lower sensitivities mean that the classification boundary for "healthy" performance should be lowered in children, pending development of techniques to improve attentiveness/fixation that may reduce or remove this difference. High measurement variability suggests that the results of multiple tests should be averaged when possible. Learning effects are a potential confound, and it is recommended that the results of the first examination be discarded.
Purpose: To assess the feasibility of macular integrity assessment (MAIA) microperimetry (MP) in children. Also to establish representative outcome measures (differential light sensitivity, fixation stability, test-retest reliability) for children without visual impairment. Methods: Thirty-three adults and 33 children (9-12 years) were asked to perform three monocular MAIA examinations within a single session (dominant eye only). Results:Children exhibited poorer test-retest reliability than adults for measures of both mean sensitivity (95% coefficient of repeatability [CoR95] = 2.7 vs. 2.3 dB, P = 0.036) and pointwise sensitivity (CoR95 = 6.2 vs. 5.7 dB, P < 0.001). Mean sensitivity was lower in children (27.6 vs. 29.5 dB, P < 0.001), and fixation stability was poorer (95% bivariate contour ellipse area [BCEA95] = 4.58 vs. 1.14, P < 0.001). Mean sensitivity was negatively correlated with fixation stability (r = -0.44, P < 0.001). Both children and adults exhibited substantial practice effects, with mean sensitivity improving by 0.5 dB (adults) and 0.9 dB (children) between examinations 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.017). There were no significant differences between examinations 2 and 3 (P ≥ 0.374). Conclusions: Microperimetry is feasible in 9- to 12-year-old children. However, systematically lower sensitivities mean that the classification boundary for "healthy" performance should be lowered in children, pending development of techniques to improve attentiveness/fixation that may reduce or remove this difference. High measurement variability suggests that the results of multiple tests should be averaged when possible. Learning effects are a potential confound, and it is recommended that the results of the first examination be discarded.
Authors: Dipesh E Patel; Phillippa M Cumberland; Bronwen C Walters; Isabelle Russell-Eggitt; John Brookes; Maria Papadopoulos; Peng Tee Khaw; Ananth C Viswanathan; David Garway-Heath; Mario Cortina-Borja; Jugnoo S Rahi Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Ferenc B Sallo; Irene Leung; Traci E Clemons; Tunde Peto; Emily Y Chew; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Alan C Bird Journal: Retina Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Danuta M Sampson; Danial Roshandel; Avenell L Chew; Yufei Wang; Paul G Stevenson; Matthew N Cooper; Elaine Ong; Lawrence Wong; Jonathan La; David Alonso-Caneiro; Enid Chelva; Jane C Khan; David D Sampson; Fred K Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; David P Crabb; Pete R Jones; Paolo Fogagnolo; Maurizio Digiuni; Luca M Rossetti Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Jason Charng; Tina M Lamey; Jennifer A Thompson; Terri L McLaren; Mary S Attia; Ian L McAllister; Ian J Constable; David A Mackey; John N De Roach; Fred K Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jason Charng; Paul G Sanfilippo; Mary S Attia; Monika Dolliver; Sukanya Arunachalam; Avenell L Chew; Evan N Wong; David A Mackey; Fred K Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Steven M Thurman; Marcello Maniglia; Pinakin G Davey; Mandy K Biles; Kristina M Visscher; Aaron R Seitz Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 3.283