Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Normal Subjects

Acton, Jennifer H., Bartlett, Nicholas S. and Greenstein, Vivienne C. 2011. Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Normal Subjects. Optometry and Vision Science 88 (11) , pp. 1288-1297. 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31822b3746

Full text not available from this repository.

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.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Optometry and Vision Sciences
Subjects: R Medicine > RE Ophthalmology
Uncontrolled Keywords: microperimetry, fundus perimetry, threshold, age, sensitivity
Publisher: American Academy of Optometry
ISSN: 1040-5488
Last Modified: 02 May 2019 13:34
URI: http://orca-mwe.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/36841

Citation Data

Cited 13 times in Google Scholar. View in Google Scholar

Cited 26 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item