Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of macular microperimetry using the microperimeter MP-1.
Methods
Participants: Fifteen healthy volunteers younger than 40 years of age (Group 1), 15 healthy subjects over 60 years (Group 2), and five patients with age-related macular degeneration (Group 3). Observation procedure: Two examiners (E1 and E2) measured, in random order, interexaminer (E2–E1a) reliability. Another examination was undergone by one of the examiners a week later to evaluate the intraexaminer (E1b–E1a) reliability. Main outcome measures: Macular sensitivity (mean threshold (decibel)) and stability of fixation were determined using MP1 microperimetry. Agreement was analysed by means of Bland–Altman plots and by the determination of the intraclass correlation coefficient.
Results
The interexaminer (E2–E1a) and the intraexaminer (E1b–E1a) differences in the mean threshold values were not statistically significant (P=0.850, 95% confidence Interval (CI)=−0.265 to 0.319; P=0.246, 95% CI=−0.099 to 0.375, respectively). Limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients also showed good agreement in each group.
Conclusions
A good reliability was found for the mean threshold values in all the three groups, indicating examiner-independent measurements.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Andersen MV . Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope microperimetry compared with Octopus perimetry in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1996; 74 (2): 135–139.
Sunness JS, Schuchard RA, Shen N, Rubin GS, Dagnelie G, Haselwood DM . Landmark-driven fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36 (9): 1863–1874.
Rohrschneider K, Fendrich T, Becker M, Krastel H, Kruse FE, Volcker HE . Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1995; 233 (12): 743–749.
Rohrschneider K, Gluck R, Becker M, Holz FG, Kruse FE, Fendrich T et al. Scanning laser fundus perimetry before laser photocoagulation of well defined choroidal neovascularisation. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81 (7): 568–573.
Rohrschneider K, Bultmann S, Gluck R, Kruse FE, Fendrich T, Volcker HE . Scanning laser ophthalmoscope fundus perimetry before and after laser photocoagulation for clinically significant diabetic macular edema. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129 (1): 27–32.
Sjaarda RN, Frank DA, Glaser BM, Thompson JT, Murphy RP . Assessment of vision in idiopathic macular holes with macular microperimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1993; 100 (10): 1513–1518.
Frenkel S, Slonim E, Horani A, Molcho M, Barzel I, Blumenthal EZ . Operator learning effect and interoperator reproducibility of the scanning laser polarimeter with variable corneal compensation. Ophthalmology 2005; 112 (2): 257–261.
Blumenthal EZ, Williams JM, Weinreb RN, Girkin CA, Berry CC, Zangwill LM . Reproducibility of nerve fiber layer thickness measurements by use of optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2000; 107 (12): 2278–2282.
Gunvant P, Braodway DC, Watkiins RJ . Repeatability and reproducibility of the BVI ultrasonic Pachymeter. Eye 2003; 17: 825–828.
Sacu S, Findl O, Buehl W, Kiss B, Gleiss A, Drexler W . Optical biometry of the anterior eye segment: interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of ACMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31 (12): 2334–2339.
Lewis RA, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Labermeier PK . Variability of quantitative automated perimetry in normal observers. Ophthalmology 1986; 93 (7): 878–881.
Kim LS, McAnany JJ, Alexander KR, Fishman GA . Intersession repeatability of humphrey perimetry measurements in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48 (10): 4720–4724.
Kiser AK, Mladenovich D, Eshraghi F, Bourdeau D, Dagnelie G . Reliability and consistency of dark-adapted psychophysical measures in advanced eye disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47 (1): 444–452.
Katz J, Sommer A, Witt K . Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Ophthalmology 1991; 98 (1): 70–75.
Bjerre A, Grigg JR, Parry NR, Henson DB . Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45 (11): 4035–4040.
Langelaan M, Wouters B, Moll AC, de Boer MR, vans Rens GH . Intra- and interrater agreement and reliability of the Functional Field Score. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25 (2): 136–142.
Chan AB, Chauhan BC, LeBlanc RP, McCormick TA, Shaw AM . Intra- and interrater agreement with cumulative defect curves. J Glaucoma 1997; 6 (2): 117–122.
Viswanathan AC, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, Westcott MC, Kamal D, Garway-Heath DF et al. Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87 (6): 726–730.
Westling AK, Newland HS . Interrater agreement in oculo-kinetic perimetry--a screening test for glaucoma. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1995; 23 (2): 125–128.
Springer C, Bultmann S, Volcker HE, Rohrschneider K . Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2005; 112 (5): 848–854.
Fujii GY, de Juan Jr E, Sunness J, Humayun MS, Pieramici DJ, Chang TS . Patient selection for macular translocation surgery using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 2002; 109 (9): 1737–1744.
Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.
Bland JM, Altman DG . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–160.
Rohrschneider K, Springer C, Bultmann S, Volcker HE . Microperimetry--comparison between the micro perimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope--fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139 (1): 125–134.
Sawa M, Gomi F, Toyoda A, Ikuno Y, Fujikado T, Tano Y . A microperimeter that provides fixation pattern and retinal sensitivity measurement. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2006; 50 (2): 111–115.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, Cello KE, Kass MA, Gordon MO . Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118 (9): 1187–1194.
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Levine RA, Fan J, Cello KE, Kass MA et al. Normal visual field test results following glaucomatous visual field end points in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123 (9): 1201–1206.
Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP . Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117 (1): 24–33.
Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G . Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol 1989; 108 (2): 130–135.
Holmin C, Krakau CE . Variability of glaucomatous visual field defects in computerized perimetry. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 1979; 210 (4): 235–250.
Matsuo H, Tomita G, Suzuki Y, Araie M . Learning effect and measurement variability in frequency-doubling technology perimetry in chronic open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2002; 11 (6): 467–473.
Yenice O, Temel A . Evaluation of two Humphrey perimetry programs: full threshold and SITA standard testing strategy for learning effect. Eur J Ophthalmol 2005; 15 (2): 209–212.
Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V, Hughes BA, Kim C, Lee D . Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology 1997; 104 (7): 1126–1130.
Rohrschneider K, Becker M, Schumacher N, Fendrich T, Volcker HE . Normal values for fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 126 (1): 52–58.
Kosnik W, Fikre J, Sekuler R . Visual fixation stability in older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986; 27 (12): 1720–1725.
Vujosevic S, Midena E, Pilotto E, Radin PP, Cheisa L, Cavarzeran F . Diabetic macular edema: correlation between microperimetry and optical coherence tomography findings. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47 (7): 3044–3051.
Mukesh BN, Dimitrov PN, Leikin S, Wang JJ, Mitchell P, McCarty CA et al. Five-year incidence of age-related maculopathy: the Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmology 2004; 111 (6): 1176–1182.
Okada K, Yamamoto S, Mizunoya S, Hoshino A, Arai M, Takatsuna Y . Correlation of retinal sensitivity measured with fundus-related microperimetry to visual acuity and retinal thickness in eyes with diabetic macular edema. Eye 2006; 20: 805–809.
Varano M, Parisi V, Tedeschi M, Sciamanna M, Gallinaro G, Capaldo N et al. Macular function after PDT in myopic maculopathy: psychophysical and electrophysiological evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46 (4): 1453–1462.
Richter-Mueksch S, Vécsei-Marlovits PV, Sacu S, Kiss C, Weingessel B, Schmidt-Erfurth U . Functional Macular Mapping in Patients with Vitreomacular Pathology before and after Surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144 (1): 23–31.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
No funding or support was provided
None of the authors have any commercial interest in any material or method mentioned
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weingessel, B., Sacu, S., Vécsei-Marlovits, P. et al. Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of the microperimeter MP-1. Eye 23, 1052–1058 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2008.237
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2008.237
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Understanding the role of microperimetry in glaucoma
International Ophthalmology (2022)
-
Correlation of macular sensitivity measures and visual acuity to vision-related quality of life in patients with age-related macular degeneration
BMC Ophthalmology (2021)
-
Test–retest variability of microperimetry in geographic atrophy
International Journal of Retina and Vitreous (2020)
-
Microperimetry in age: related macular degeneration
Eye (2017)
-
Prospective microperimetry and OCT evaluation of efficacy of repeated intravitreal bevacizumab injections for persistent clinically significant diabetic macular edema
International Ophthalmology (2013)
