Macular Pigment Research Group, Department of Chemical & Life Sciences, Waterford Institute of Technology, Carriganore House, W.I.T. West Campus, Carriganore, Waterford, Ireland.
Exp Eye Res. 2013 Nov;116:190-8. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2013.08.014. Epub 2013 Sep 3.
This study compares in vivo measurements of macular pigment (MP) obtained using customized heterochromatic flicker photometry (cHFP; Macular Metrics Densitometer(™)), dual-wavelength fundus autofluorescence (Heidelberg Spectralis(®) HRA + OCT MultiColor) and single-wavelength fundus reflectance (Zeiss Visucam(®) 200). MP was measured in one eye of 62 subjects on each device. Data from 49 subjects (79%) was suitable for analysis. Agreement between the Densitometer and Spectralis was investigated at various eccentricities using a variety of quantitative and graphical methods, including: Pearson correlation coefficient to measure degree of scatter (precision), accuracy coefficient, concordance correlation coefficient (ccc), paired t-test, scatter and Bland-Altman plots. The relationship between max MP from the Visucam and central MP from the Spectralis and Densitometer was investigated using regression methods. Agreement was strong between the Densitometer and Spectralis at all central eccentricities (e.g. at 0.25° eccentricity: accuracy = 0.97, precision = 0.90, ccc = 0.87). Regression analysis showed a very weak relationship between the Visucam and Densitometer (e.g. Visucam max on Densitometer central MP: R(2) = 0.008, p = 0.843). Regression analysis also demonstrated a weak relationship between MP measured by the Spectralis and Visucam (e.g. Visucam max on Spectralis central MP: R(2) = 0.047, p = 0.348). MP values obtained using the Heidelberg Spectralis are comparable to MP values obtained using the Densitometer. In contrast, MP values obtained using the Zeiss Visucam are not comparable with either the Densitometer or the Spectralis MP measuring devices. Taking cHFP as the current standard to which other MP measuring devices should be compared, the Spectralis is suitable for use in a clinical and research setting, whereas the Visucam is not.
本研究比较了使用定制的双色闪烁光度法（cHFP；Macular Metrics Densitometer(™)）、双波长眼底自发荧光（Heidelberg Spectralis(®) HRA + OCT MultiColor）和单波长眼底反射率（Zeiss Visucam(®) 200）在体内测量的黄斑色素（MP）。在每只眼睛上，62 名受试者使用三种设备进行了 MP 测量。49 名受试者（79%）的数据适合进行分析。使用多种定量和图形方法，包括 Pearson 相关系数（测量离散度的精度）、准确性系数、一致性相关系数（ccc）、配对 t 检验、散点图和 Bland-Altman 图，研究了在不同偏心度下，密度计和光谱仪之间的一致性。使用回归方法研究了 Visucam 的最大 MP 与 Spectralis 和密度计的中央 MP 之间的关系。在所有中央偏心度下，密度计和光谱仪之间的一致性都很强（例如，在 0.25°偏心度时：准确性=0.97，精度=0.90，ccc=0.87）。回归分析表明，Visucam 和密度计之间的关系非常弱（例如，Visucam 在密度计中央 MP 上的最大 MP：R(2) = 0.008，p = 0.843）。回归分析还表明，光谱仪和 Visucam 测量的 MP 之间存在弱关系（例如，Visucam 在 Spectralis 中央 MP 上的最大 MP：R(2) = 0.047，p = 0.348）。使用海德堡光谱仪获得的 MP 值与使用密度计获得的 MP 值相当。相比之下，使用蔡司 Visucam 获得的 MP 值与密度计或光谱仪的 MP 测量设备均不具有可比性。将 cHFP 作为其他 MP 测量设备应与之比较的当前标准，光谱仪适用于临床和研究环境，而 Visucam 则不适用。
