rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:432-434 doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.085787
  • Clinical science
    • Scientific reports

Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time

  1. J S Wolffsohn1,
  2. S J Anderson1,
  3. J Mitchell2,
  4. A Woodcock2,
  5. M Rubinstein3,
  6. T Ffytche4,
  7. A Browning3,
  8. K Willbond3,
  9. W M Amoaku3,
  10. C Bradley2
  1. 1School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
  2. 2Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK
  3. 3Division of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Eye and ENT Centre, Queen’s Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
  4. 4Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Capper Street, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to: James S Wolffsohn PhD, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK; j.s.w.wolffsohn{at}aston.ac.uk
  • Accepted 21 November 2005

Abstract

Aim: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function.

Methods: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery.

Results: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable.

Conclusions: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.

Footnotes

  • The authors have no commercial interest in the EMS test.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
 This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of BJO.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for BJO. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.