Display options
Cite
Tan RS, Guymer RH, Luu CD. Repeatability of Retinal Sensitivity Measurements Using a Medmont Dark-Adapted Chromatic Perimeter in Healthy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cases. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7(3):3doi: 10.1167/tvst.7.3.3.
Tan, R. S., Guymer, R. H., & Luu, C. D. (2018). Repeatability of Retinal Sensitivity Measurements Using a Medmont Dark-Adapted Chromatic Perimeter in Healthy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cases. Translational vision science & technology, 7(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.3.3
Tan, Rose S, et al. "Repeatability of Retinal Sensitivity Measurements Using a Medmont Dark-Adapted Chromatic Perimeter in Healthy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cases." Translational vision science & technology vol. 7,3 (2018): 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.3.3
Tan RS, Guymer RH, Luu CD. Repeatability of Retinal Sensitivity Measurements Using a Medmont Dark-Adapted Chromatic Perimeter in Healthy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cases. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018 May 01;7(3):3. doi: 10.1167/tvst.7.3.3. eCollection 2018 May. PMID: 29736324; PMCID: PMC5931259.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018 May 01;7(3):3. doi: 10.1167/tvst.7.3.3. eCollection 2018 May.

Repeatability of Retinal Sensitivity Measurements Using a Medmont Dark-Adapted Chromatic Perimeter in Healthy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cases.

Translational vision science & technology

Rose S Tan, Robyn H Guymer, Chi D Luu

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  2. Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia.

PMID: 29736324 PMCID: PMC5931259 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.7.3.3

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the intrasession and intersession test-retest repeatability of retinal sensitivity measurements using a dark-adapted chromatic perimeter (DACP).

METHODS: For intrasession testing, retinal sensitivity within the central 24° for the 505-nm stimulus was measured after 20, 30, and 40 minutes of dark adaptation (DA) and for the 625-nm stimulus was measured after the first and second 505-nm tests. For intersession testing, retinal sensitivity for both stimuli was measured after 30 minutes of DA at baseline and 1 month. The point-wise sensitivity (PWS) difference and coefficient of repeatability (CoR) of each stimulus and group were determined.

RESULTS: For intrasession testing, 10 age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and eight control subjects were recruited. The overall CoR for the 505-nm stimulus was 8.4 dB for control subjects and 9.1 dB for AMD cases, and for the 625-nm stimulus was 6.7 dB for control subjects and 9.5 dB for AMD cases. For intersession testing, seven AMD cases and 13 control subjects returned an overall CoR for the 505-nm stimulus of 8.2 dB for the control and 11.7 dB for the AMD group. For the 625-nm stimulus the CoR was 6.2 dB for the control group and 8.4 dB for the AMD group. Approximately 80% of all test points had a PWS difference of ±5 dB between the two intrasession or intersession measurements for both stimuli.

CONCLUSIONS: The CoR for the DACP is larger than that reported for scotopic perimeters; however, the majority of test points had a PWS difference of ±5 dB between tests.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The DACP offers an opportunity to measure static and dynamic rod function at multiple locations with an acceptable reproducibility level.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration; dark-adapted chromatic perimeter; scotopic perimeter; test-retest repeatability

References

  1. Ophthalmology. 2001 Jul;108(7):1196-202 - PubMed
  2. Ophthalmology. 2014 Aug;121(8):1612-9 - PubMed
  3. Curr Eye Res. 2016;41(2):266-72 - PubMed
  4. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;130(6):690-9 - PubMed
  5. Ophthalmology. 2015 Oct;122(10 ):2053-62 - PubMed
  6. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002 Feb;240(2):90-5 - PubMed
  7. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017 Jul 13;6(4):7 - PubMed
  8. J Ocul Biol Dis Infor. 2008 Mar;1(1):7-11 - PubMed
  9. Ageing Res Rev. 2002 Jun;1(3):381-96 - PubMed
  10. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Jan;49(1):55-65 - PubMed
  11. Eye (Lond). 2001 Jun;15(Pt 3):376-83 - PubMed
  12. Ophthalmology. 2016 Feb;123(2):344-51 - PubMed
  13. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 May 1;58(6):BIO158-BIO167 - PubMed
  14. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Jun;133(6):690-7 - PubMed
  15. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993 Sep;77(9):549-54 - PubMed
  16. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Jan;41(1):267-73 - PubMed
  17. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 May 22;55(8):4776-89 - PubMed
  18. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Oct 1;57(13):5436-5442 - PubMed
  19. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009 Mar-Apr;54(2):167-210 - PubMed
  20. BMC Ophthalmol. 2011 Feb 08;11:5 - PubMed
  21. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Mar 10;55(3):1427-31 - PubMed
  22. Clin Exp Optom. 2009 Mar;92(2):90-8 - PubMed
  23. Ophthalmologica. 2017;237(1):42-54 - PubMed
  24. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:671529 - PubMed
  25. Ophthalmology. 2013 Apr;120(4):844-51 - PubMed
  26. Ophthalmology. 2007 Sep;114(9):1728-35 - PubMed
  27. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997 May;115(5):595-603 - PubMed
  28. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Dec 09;52(13):9457-69 - PubMed

Publication Types