Document Detail


Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21822159     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
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.
Authors:
Jennifer H Acton; Nicholas S Bartlett; Vivienne C Greenstein
Related Documents :
24610189 - Primary care physicians' challenges in ordering clinical laboratory tests and interpret...
2168439 - Indirect immunofluorescence test performance and questionnaire results from the centers...
10418749 - Towards common reference intervals in clinical chemistry. an attempt at harmonization b...
23432509 - Footwear contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate.
22959749 - In vivo quantification of the laxity of normal and unstable glenohumeral joints.
24889599 - Combination of blood tests for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis improves the assessme...
11436269 - Towards the control of a powered orthosis for people with muscular dystrophy.
18781649 - Biochemical assessment of erythropoietin products from asia versus us epoetin alfa manu...
18412949 - Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein in acute myocardial infarction evaluation (fame):...
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:  2013-06-28    
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    
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA. ja2660@columbia.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Vision Disorders / diagnosis*,  physiopathology
Visual Field Tests / instrumentation*
Visual Fields*
Young Adult
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
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 EY015520-08/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01-EY015520/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01-EY02115/EY/NEI NIH HHS; R01-EY09076/EY/NEI NIH HHS
Comments/Corrections

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.