MAIA microperimeter for short-duration fixation stability measurements in central vision loss: Repeatability and comparison with the Nidek MP1.

Yulia Pyatova, Samuel N Markowitz, Robert G Devenyi, Luminita Tarita-Nistor
{"title":"MAIA microperimeter for short-duration fixation stability measurements in central vision loss: Repeatability and comparison with the Nidek MP1.","authors":"Yulia Pyatova,&nbsp;Samuel N Markowitz,&nbsp;Robert G Devenyi,&nbsp;Luminita Tarita-Nistor","doi":"10.1111/opo.12960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study reports the repeatability of 20 s-duration fixation stability measurements recorded with the Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeter in patients with central vision loss, in contrast to the Nidek MP1 microperimeter.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fixation stability was recorded in 39 eyes of 25 patients with macular disease using MAIA and the MP1 for 20 s intervals, twice for each eye, with each instrument. Twenty eyes were identified as the better eye (BE) and 19 eyes as the worse eye (WE). Fixation stability was quantified with the 95% bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA), logarithmically transformed. Bland-Altman plots were used to determine the 95% limits of agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For MAIA, the 95% limits of agreement were ±0.84 log deg<sup>2</sup> for the BE and ±0.66 log deg<sup>2</sup> for the WE. Similarly, for the MP1 these limits were ±0.48 log deg<sup>2</sup> for the BE and ±0.72 log deg<sup>2</sup> for the WE. Inter-device repeatability was modest, ±1.09 log deg<sup>2</sup> for the BE and ±1.01 log deg<sup>2</sup> for the WE, and a proportional bias was detected. Occasionally, MAIA did not register all the expected number of data points, and included far outliers in the BCEA calculation; the inter-device repeatability did not improve when these outliers were removed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Repeatability of 20 s-duration fixation stability examination in patients with central vision loss is specific to the instrument used. We recommend that only data from same type of microperimeter with the same fixation duration should be compared when using fixation stability as an outcome measure to monitor disease progression, effect of treatment or in clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":520731,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","volume":" ","pages":"633-643"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12960","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: This study reports the repeatability of 20 s-duration fixation stability measurements recorded with the Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeter in patients with central vision loss, in contrast to the Nidek MP1 microperimeter.

Methods: Fixation stability was recorded in 39 eyes of 25 patients with macular disease using MAIA and the MP1 for 20 s intervals, twice for each eye, with each instrument. Twenty eyes were identified as the better eye (BE) and 19 eyes as the worse eye (WE). Fixation stability was quantified with the 95% bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA), logarithmically transformed. Bland-Altman plots were used to determine the 95% limits of agreement.

Results: For MAIA, the 95% limits of agreement were ±0.84 log deg2 for the BE and ±0.66 log deg2 for the WE. Similarly, for the MP1 these limits were ±0.48 log deg2 for the BE and ±0.72 log deg2 for the WE. Inter-device repeatability was modest, ±1.09 log deg2 for the BE and ±1.01 log deg2 for the WE, and a proportional bias was detected. Occasionally, MAIA did not register all the expected number of data points, and included far outliers in the BCEA calculation; the inter-device repeatability did not improve when these outliers were removed.

Conclusions: Repeatability of 20 s-duration fixation stability examination in patients with central vision loss is specific to the instrument used. We recommend that only data from same type of microperimeter with the same fixation duration should be compared when using fixation stability as an outcome measure to monitor disease progression, effect of treatment or in clinical trials.

MAIA微周长用于中央视力丧失的短时间固定稳定性测量:可重复性和与Nidek MP1的比较。
目的:本研究报告了与Nidek MP1微周相比,用黄斑完整性评估(MAIA)微周记录的20秒持续固定稳定性测量在中央性视力丧失患者中的重复性。方法:对25例黄斑病变患者39眼分别使用MAIA和MP1仪记录固定稳定性,每眼2次,每次间隔20 s。20只眼为较好眼(BE), 19只眼为较差眼(WE)。用95%双变量轮廓椭圆面积(BCEA)进行对数变换,定量测定固定稳定性。Bland-Altman图用于确定95%的一致性限。结果:MAIA的95%一致性限为:BE为±0.84 log deg2, WE为±0.66 log deg2。同样,对于MP1,这些极限为BE的±0.48 log deg2和WE的±0.72 log deg2。仪器间重复性适中,BE为±1.09 log deg2, WE为±1.01 log deg2,存在比例偏倚。偶尔,MAIA没有登记所有预期数量的数据点,并且在BCEA计算中包含了远异常值;当这些异常值被移除时,设备间的重复性并没有提高。结论:中枢性视力丧失患者20秒内固定稳定性检查的重复性与所使用的仪器有关。当使用固定稳定性作为监测疾病进展、治疗效果或临床试验的结果指标时,我们建议只比较来自相同类型微周且固定时间相同的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信