We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Repeatability of Nidek MP-1 Fixation Measurements in Patients With Bilateral Central Field Loss.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2015 April
PURPOSE: Visual performance in patients with bilateral central field loss is related to fixation stability. This study evaluated the repeatability of visual-fixation parameters in patients with bilateral central field loss, measured with the MP-1 microperimeter for fixation durations on the order of 15 to 30 seconds.
METHODS: Bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA), and the eccentricity and meridian of the preferred retinal locus (PRL) were determined in 56 eyes of 56 patients, sampled at two investigational sites. Repeatability and agreement were assessed by estimating 95% limits of agreement for each parameter from two fixation examinations conducted on the same day.
RESULTS: The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for log BCEA and for PRL eccentricity and meridian were ±0.67 log deg2, ±2.0°, and ±65.9°, respectively. Each CI decreased substantially if a small number of outlying data points were excluded. For all parameters, the mean difference between the two fixation examinations was close to zero.
CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with bilateral central field loss, the repeatability of estimated BCEA and PRL eccentricity and meridian is good. When repeated estimates of fixation parameters do not agree, the absence of a well-developed PRL or the use of multiple PRLs may be suspected.
METHODS: Bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA), and the eccentricity and meridian of the preferred retinal locus (PRL) were determined in 56 eyes of 56 patients, sampled at two investigational sites. Repeatability and agreement were assessed by estimating 95% limits of agreement for each parameter from two fixation examinations conducted on the same day.
RESULTS: The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for log BCEA and for PRL eccentricity and meridian were ±0.67 log deg2, ±2.0°, and ±65.9°, respectively. Each CI decreased substantially if a small number of outlying data points were excluded. For all parameters, the mean difference between the two fixation examinations was close to zero.
CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with bilateral central field loss, the repeatability of estimated BCEA and PRL eccentricity and meridian is good. When repeated estimates of fixation parameters do not agree, the absence of a well-developed PRL or the use of multiple PRLs may be suspected.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app