You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Authors' response: clinical evaluation of the MPS 9000 macular pigment screener
  1. Hannah Bartlett,
  2. Frank Eperjesi
  1. Ophthalmic Research Group, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hannah Bartlett, Vision Sciences Building, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK; h.e.bartlett{at}aston.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.196386

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    As a research group with no commercial interest in any macular pigment optical density (MPOD) measurement devices or nutritional supplements, we feel that we were well-placed to carry out an independent clinical assessment of the reliability of the MPS 9000 (Tinsley Precision Instruments, Redhill, Surrey, UK). Our study was prompted by the fact that we could not find any reported coefficient of repeatability value within the literature, and none was provided by the manufacturer.1 We had planned to use this instrument in our own research studies investigating the impact of nutritional supplementation on MPOD. For this purpose, we needed …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Linked articles 195321.

    • Competing interests None.

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

    Linked Articles