Document Detail

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21822159     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
PURPOSE: To compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.
METHODS: Fifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits.
RESULTS: MP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found.
CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.
Jennifer H Acton; Nicholas S Bartlett; Vivienne C Greenstein
Related Documents :
25137409 - Maternal plasma dna testing: experience of women counseled at a prenatal diagnosis center.
17636489 - Validation in the cytopathology laboratory: its time has come.
23475599 - Ambulatory reflux monitoring in gerd--which test should be performed and should therapy...
23981009 - Patient, physician, and procedural factors influencing the use of defibrillation testin...
24783019 - Large discrepancy in the results of sensitive measurements of thyroglobulin antibodies ...
23196699 - Auditory threshold shifts after glycerol administration to patients with suspected meni...
10539539 - Informed consent for psa screening: does it happen?
498769 - Epidemiological survey of occupational contact dermatitis of the hands in belgium.
18613579 - Lethal and sublethal effects of imidacloprid on osmia lignaria and clothianidin on mega...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry     Volume:  88     ISSN:  1538-9235     ISO Abbreviation:  Optom Vis Sci     Publication Date:  2011 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-10-28     Completed Date:  2012-02-14     Revised Date:  2014-09-15    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8904931     Medline TA:  Optom Vis Sci     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1288-97     Citation Subset:  IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Equipment Design
Middle Aged
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Vision Disorders / diagnosis*,  physiopathology
Visual Field Tests / instrumentation*
Visual Fields*
Young Adult
Grant Support
R01 EY002115/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01 EY002115-35/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01 EY009076/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01 EY009076-20/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01 EY015520/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01 EY015520-08/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01-EY015520/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01-EY02115/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01-EY09076/EY/NEI NIH HHS

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Onyx Embolization of Extradural Spinal Arteriovenous Malformations With Intradural Venous Drainagea.
Next Document:  Abandonment of low-vision devices in an outpatient population.