Siva Balasubramanian 1,2 , Akihito Uji 1,2 , Jianqin Lei 1,2,3 , Swetha Velaga 1,2 , Muneeswar Nittala 1,2 , SriniVas Sadda 1,2 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare and correlate the retinal sensitivity measurements obtained with Nidek Microperimetry-3 (MP-3) and the CenterVue Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeters among healthy subjects. METHODS: In this prospective comparative study, 31 eyes of 23 subjects underwent complete ophthalmological examination including retinal sensitivity assessments using two microperimeters, the MP-3 (Nidek Technologies) and the MAIA (CenterVue). The mean retinal sensitivity (dB) and its corresponding luminance (asb) and contrast (log units) were analysed between the two instruments. The interdevice reproducibility and level of agreement between the sensitivity values of the devices were assessed. RESULTS: The mean retinal sensitivity (dB) measured by the MP-3 (25.02±1.06 dB, range: 20.90-26.70) was significantly (p<0.0001) lower compared with the MAIA (30.68±0.74 dB, range: 28-31.84). The luminosity levels were significantly (p<0.0001) higher with the MP3 (7.75±1.31 asb, range: 6.44-9.06) compared with the MAIA (0.92±0.14 asb, range: 0.78-1.06). The contrast sensitivity was significantly higher for the MP-3 (0.94±0.33 log units, range: 0.61-1.27) compared with the MAIA (0.23±0.03 log units, range: 0.20-0.26). Despite these absolute differences, the intraclass coefficient was 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.92) between the two devices after applying a standard correction factor to each data point (MAIA sensitivity=MP-3 sensitivity+5.65) with a mean difference between MAIA and MP-3 of 0.01. CONCLUSION: Retinal sensitivity measures higher, but luminance and contrast sensitivity measure lower for MAIA-generated values compared with the MP-3. The relationships, however, appeared fairly consistent, and application of a standard correction factor allowed the data to be inter-related, at least for normal eyes. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
BACKGROUND: To compare and correlate the retinal sensitivity measurements obtained with Nidek Microperimetry-3 (MP-3) and the CenterVue Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeters among healthy subjects. METHODS: In this prospective comparative study, 31 eyes of 23 subjects underwent complete ophthalmological examination including retinal sensitivity assessments using two microperimeters, the MP-3 (Nidek Technologies) and the MAIA (CenterVue). The mean retinal sensitivity (dB) and its corresponding luminance (asb) and contrast (log units) were analysed between the two instruments. The interdevice reproducibility and level of agreement between the sensitivity values of the devices were assessed. RESULTS: The mean retinal sensitivity (dB) measured by the MP-3 (25.02±1.06 dB, range: 20.90-26.70) was significantly (p<0.0001) lower compared with the MAIA (30.68±0.74 dB, range: 28-31.84). The luminosity levels were significantly (p<0.0001) higher with the MP3 (7.75±1.31 asb, range: 6.44-9.06) compared with the MAIA (0.92±0.14 asb, range: 0.78-1.06). The contrast sensitivity was significantly higher for the MP-3 (0.94±0.33 log units, range: 0.61-1.27) compared with the MAIA (0.23±0.03 log units, range: 0.20-0.26). Despite these absolute differences, the intraclass coefficient was 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.92) between the two devices after applying a standard correction factor to each data point (MAIA sensitivity=MP-3 sensitivity+5.65) with a mean difference between MAIA and MP-3 of 0.01. CONCLUSION: Retinal sensitivity measures higher, but luminance and contrast sensitivity measure lower for MAIA-generated values compared with the MP-3. The relationships, however, appeared fairly consistent, and application of a standard correction factor allowed the data to be inter-related, at least for normal eyes. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Keywords:
imaging; retina
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2017
PMID： 28495907 DOI： 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Ophthalmol ISSN： 0007-1161 Impact factor: 4.638