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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributor SRS is a consultant for Optos, ThromboGenics, Iconic Therapeutics, CenterVue, Genentech and Allergan, and receives research support from Optos, Genentech, Allergan and Carl Zeiss Meditec.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Patient.
Ethics approval Institutional Review Board of the University of California - Los Angeles.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.