Acton Jennifer H, Bartlett Nicholas S, Greenstein Vivienne C
Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.
Optom Vis Sci. 2011 Nov;88(11):1288-97. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31822b3746.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。