View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: MAIA microperimeter for short‐duration fixation stability measurements in central vision loss: Repeatability and comparison with the Nidek MP1.
Authors: Pyatova, Yulia (AUTHOR), Markowitz, Samuel N (AUTHOR), Devenyi, Robert G (AUTHOR), Tarita‐Nistor, Luminita (AUTHOR)
Source: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. May2022, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p633-643. 11p. 1 Color Photograph, 2 Charts, 3 Graphs.
Subjects: Vision disorders, Statistical reliability, Bland-Altman plot, Disease progression, Clinical trials
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 156131731
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: MAIA microperimeter for short‐duration fixation stability measurements in central vision loss: Repeatability and comparison with the Nidek MP1.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pyatova%2C+Yulia%22">Pyatova, Yulia</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Markowitz%2C+Samuel+N%22">Markowitz, Samuel N</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Devenyi%2C+Robert+G%22">Devenyi, Robert G</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tarita‐Nistor%2C+Luminita%22">Tarita‐Nistor, Luminita</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Ophthalmic+%26+Physiological+Optics%22">Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics</searchLink>. May2022, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p633-643. 11p. 1 Color Photograph, 2 Charts, 3 Graphs.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vision+disorders%22">Vision disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+reliability%22">Statistical reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bland-Altman+plot%22">Bland-Altman plot</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disease+progression%22">Disease progression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clinical+trials%22">Clinical trials</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=156131731
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/opo.12960
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 633
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Vision disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bland-Altman plot
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disease progression
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical trials
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: MAIA microperimeter for short‐duration fixation stability measurements in central vision loss: Repeatability and comparison with the Nidek MP1.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pyatova, Yulia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Markowitz, Samuel N
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Devenyi, Robert G
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tarita‐Nistor, Luminita
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Text: May2022
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 02755408
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics
              Type: main
ResultId 1