Suppr超能文献

在正常受试者中比较尼德克MP-1和汉弗莱视野分析仪。

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey field analyzer in normal subjects.

作者信息

Acton Jennifer H, Bartlett Nicholas S, Greenstein Vivienne C

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.

出版信息

Optom Vis Sci. 2011 Nov;88(11):1288-97. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31822b3746.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

比较健康志愿者使用尼德克MP - 1视野计与使用 Humphrey视野分析仪(HFA)所获得的视野,并评估刺激参数和测试策略差异对患者结果解读可能产生的影响。次要目的是建立MP - 1的正常数据,以计算类似于HFA所使用的总偏差分析和全局指数。

方法

50名健康志愿者(年龄43.5±13.9岁,范围18至68岁)采用10 - 2模式接受重复的MP - 1和HFA视野测试。MP - 1数据被转换为HFA等效分贝单位。评估HFA和MP - 1敏感度在仪器间的比较、敏感度随年龄和检查时长的回归情况。检查不同次测试间的重测变异性。

结果

MP - 1(均值 = 32.82 dB,标准差 = 1.92 dB)和HFA敏感度(均值 = 32.84 dB,标准差 = 1.83 dB)无显著差异(p = 0.759)。HFA的标准差范围(1.11至3.30 dB)与MP - 1(0.14至2.75 dB)相似。然而,仪器间的不对称性比较显示,MP - 1的视网膜上方值显著降低而非下方值。MP - 1(均值 = 6:11分钟,标准差 = 1:49分钟)和HFA(均值 = 5:14分钟,标准差 = 0:42分钟)的平均测试时长存在微小但显著的差异(p = 0.004)。平均敏感度随年龄下降也存在差异,MP - 1和HFA敏感度每十年分别下降0.1 dB和0.4 dB。仪器间的重测变异性相似。发现MP - 1(p = 0.060)和HFA(p = 0.570)在第二次测试时平均敏感度均有微小但不显著的增加。

结论

当使用等效单位比较结果时,两种仪器显示出相似的变异性和重测变异性。然而,在进行比较时,必须考虑敏感度值、刺激参数和测试策略方面的重要差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b2f8/3204181/db7b2633990e/nihms315057f1.jpg

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
Localised relative scotoma in cuticular drusen.局限性相对切迹性黄斑部视网膜病变。
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022 Jul;260(7):2157-2164. doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05570-4. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
6
Understanding the role of microperimetry in glaucoma.了解微视野计在青光眼诊断中的作用。
Int Ophthalmol. 2022 Jul;42(7):2289-2301. doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-02203-3. Epub 2022 Jan 30.

本文引用的文献

1
Normal values for fundus perimetry with the microperimeter MP1.微视野计 MP1 眼底周边视野测量的正常值。
Ophthalmology. 2010 Aug;117(8):1571-6, 1576.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.12.044. Epub 2010 May 15.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验