Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021 Nov;41(6):1231-1240. doi: 10.1111/opo.12877. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
Previous work has suggested that sensitivities measured on the iCare MAIA and Nidek MP-1 microperimeters differ systematically, although it is unclear whether one or both devices are inaccurate. Here, we assess the discrepancy between these two instruments as well as with a rigorous reference standard.
Fifteen healthy participants underwent visual field testing on the MAIA and MP-1 microperimeters. Results were compared to a reference measure of increment thresholds on a laboratory-based, calibrated computer monitor system using the same background luminance and target size. Discrepancies were assessed as a function of eccentricity along the vertical meridian. Differences in decibels (dB) due to differences in the maximum stimulus luminance between devices were accounted for mathematically.
The mean sensitivity measured with the MAIA was <1 dB lower than laboratory-based measures, which was statistically significant but of limited clinical importance. In contrast, the mean sensitivity measured with the MP-1 was >8 dB lower than the laboratory measures. The difference was greater for an eccentric superior retinal location, in contrast to what would be predicted if the discrepancy was due to a ceiling effect caused by the MP-1's limited dynamic range.
While MAIA measurements showed low bias compared with our rigorously determined reference standard, the MP-1 showed large discrepancies that could not be explained purely by the limited dynamic range of the instrument. MAIA and MP-1 sensitivity values cannot be compared directly, and caution is advised when assessing absolute sensitivities or eccentricity effects in the extensive MP-1 literature.
之前的研究表明，iCare MAIA 和 Nidek MP-1 微视野计测量的敏感度存在系统差异，尽管尚不清楚是一种设备还是两种设备均不准确。在这里，我们评估了这两种仪器之间以及与严格参考标准之间的差异。
15 名健康参与者在 MAIA 和 MP-1 微视野计上进行了视野测试。结果与使用相同背景亮度和目标大小的基于实验室的校准计算机显示器系统的增量阈值参考测量值进行了比较。离焦沿着垂直子午线进行了差异评估。由于设备之间最大刺激亮度的差异，以分贝（dB）表示的差异通过数学进行了计算。
MAIA 测量的平均敏感度比实验室测量低 <1dB，这具有统计学意义，但临床意义有限。相比之下，MP-1 测量的平均敏感度比实验室测量低 >8dB。对于偏心的上视网膜位置，差异更大，这与如果差异是由于 MP-1 有限的动态范围引起的上限效应造成的相反。
虽然 MAIA 测量值与我们严格确定的参考标准相比显示出低偏差，但 MP-1 显示出的差异很大，无法仅通过仪器的有限动态范围来解释。MAIA 和 MP-1 的敏感度值不能直接比较，在评估广泛的 MP-1 文献中的绝对敏感度或离焦效应时应谨慎。
