Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Clinical evaluation of the MPS 9000 Macular Pigment Screener
  1. Hannah Bartlett,
  2. Louise Stainer,
  3. Sandip Singh,
  4. Frank Eperjesi,
  5. Olivia Howells
  1. Ophthalmic Research Group, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hannah Bartlett, Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK; h.e.bartlett{at}


Background/aims The MPS 9000 uses a psychophysical technique known as heterochromatic flicker photometry to measure macular pigment optical density (MPOD). Our aim was to determine the measurement variability (noise) of the MPS 9000.

Methods Forty normally sighted participants who ranged in age from 18 to 50 years (25.4±8.2 years) were recruited from staff and students of Aston University (Birmingham, UK). Data were collected by two operators in two sessions separated by 1 week in order to assess test repeatability and reproducibility.

Results The overall mean MPOD for the cohort was 0.35±0.14. There was no significant negative correlation between MPS 9000 MPOD readings and age (r=−0.192, p=0.236). Coefficients were 0.33 and 0.28 for repeatability, and 0.25 and 0.26 for reproducibility. There was no significant correlation between mean and difference MPOD values for any of the four pairs of results.

Conclusions When MPOD is being monitored over time then any change less than 0.33 units should not be considered clinically significant as it is very likely to be due to measurement noise. The size of the coefficient appears to be positively correlated with MPOD.

  • Age-related macular disease
  • diagnostic tests/investigation
  • macula
  • macular pigment
  • macular pigment optical density
  • M:Pod
  • MPS 9000
  • psychophysics, QuantifEYE
  • retina

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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.


  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Aston University Human Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh