Clinical value, normative retinal sensitivity values, and intrasession repeatability using a combined spectral domain optical coherence tomography/scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimeter

Eye

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 245-251

  Anastasakis, A ^a   McAnany, J J ^a   Fishman, G A ^a   Seiple, W H ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^c Lighthouse International   (United States)

Author keywords

microperimetry; normative values; SD SLO microperimeter

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PHOTOSENSITIVITY; RETINA; RETINA MACULA LUTEA; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; VISION;

EID: 79951564087     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.158     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Mainster MA, Timberlake GT, Webb RH, Hughes GW. Scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Clinical applications. Ophthalmology 1982; 89: 852-857. (Pubitemid 12039455)
2. Timberlake GT, Mainster MA, Webb RH, Hughes GW, Trempe CL. Retinal localisation of scotomata by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1982; 22: 91-97. (Pubitemid 12221976)
3. 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: 1863-1874.
4. Schneider U, Inhoffen W, Gelisken F, Kreissig I. Assessment of visual function in choroidal neovascularisation with scanning laser microperimetry and simultaneous indocyanine green angiography. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1996; 234: 612-617. (Pubitemid 26340603)
5. Rohrschneider K, Springer C, Bultman S, Volcker HE. Microperimetry- comparison between the microprimeter 1 and the scanning laser ophthalmoscope-fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139: 125-134. (Pubitemid 40094849)
6. Shah VA, Chalam KV. Values for macular perimetry using the MP-1 microperimeter in normal subjects. Ophthalmic Res 2009; 41: 9-13.
7. Chen FK, Patel PJ, Xing W, Bunce C, Egan C, Tufail AT et al. Test-retest variability of microperimetry using Nidek MP-1 in patients with macular disease. Invest Ophthlmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 3464-3472.
8. Midena E, Vujosevic S, Cavarzeran F, Microperimetry Study Group. Normal values for fundus perimetry with the microperimeter MP1. Ophthalmology 2010; 117(8): 1571-1576, 1576.e1. Epub 15 May 2010.
9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
10. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135-160. (Pubitemid 29425900)
11. Landa G, Rosen RB, Garcia PMT, Seiple WH. Combined three-dimensional spectral OCT/SLO topography and microperimetry: steps toward achieving functional spectral OCT/SLO. Ophthalmic Res 2010; 43: 92-98.
12. Lima VC, Prata TS, De Moraes CG, Kim J, Seiple W, Rosen RB et al. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 64-67.
13. Rohrschneider K, Becker M, Schumacher N, Fendrich T, Völcker HE. Normal values for fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 126: 2-58.