Intersession test—retest variability of conventional and novel parameters using the MP-1 microperimeter

Abstract

PurposeTo investigate the intersession test–retest variability (TRV) of topography- and threshold-based parameters derived from the Nidek MP-1.DesignProspective observational study.MethodsSixteen participants with and without central scotoma underwent microperimetry in one eye over three sessions at 1-month intervals in a single institution. We calculated 95% coefficient of repeatability (CR) for the number of normal-suspect (NS) loci, relative scotoma (RS) and dense scotoma (DS), median macular sensitivity (MS), mean sensitivity of responding loci (RLS), perilesional loci (PLS), and extralesional loci (ELS). Topographical agreement score of mapping NS and DS loci (TASNS and TASDS) were also calculated for each patient.ResultsMean (range) age was 50 (21–86) years. The CR (95% confidence intervals) for NS, RS, and DS were 9.9 (6.5–13.3), 9.5 (6.2–12.7), and 3.0 (1.1–4.1) respectively. CR (95% CIs) for median MS, mean RLS, PLS, and ELS were 3.4 (2.3–4.5), 1.6 (1.1–2.2), 1.8 (0.9–2.6), and 2.8 (1.5–4.0) dB. We found significant change in thresholds between Test 1, and Tests 2 and 3 (both P=0.03), but not between Tests 2 and 3 (P=0.8). Medians (range) TASNS and TASDS were 74% (39%–100%) and 77% (0%–97%), respectively, between Tests 2 and 3.ConclusionWe recommend the use of four DS loci (upper limit of CR) as the limit of TRV for assessing change. There was large interindividual variability in NS or DS mapping agreement. We recommend discarding the first microperimetry test and caution the use of a change in spatial distribution to determine disease progression.

Feasibility of Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) Microperimetry in Children: Sensitivity, Reliability, and Fixation Stability in Healthy Observers

“…The test requires participants to sit still and to remain vigilant for extended periods, and it is unclear how these demands affect completion rates or measurement reliability. Furthermore, while there have been numerous studies of test-retest reliability in adults, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] a lack of equivalent data in children makes interpreting test data problematic. For example, failure to evidence a change in sensitivity before and after treatment could be due to (currently unknown) levels of measurement error, while spurious improvements in sensitivity could be misreported due to our current ignorance of practice effects.…”

Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability Changes during Repeated Microperimetry

“…Intersession test-retest variability of different microperimetric parameters with SLO perimetry and MP-1 Nidek microperimetry, such as average threshold, fixation stability, and macular integrity, within different populations has been reported recently [2,4,[7][8][9][10].…”

“…As shown in earlier studies, automatic fundus perimetry and the first microperimetry that uses a true eye-tracking system (MP1) allow accurate, repeatable, and topographically specific examination of retinal sensitivity [4,[7][8][9][10][11][12].…”

“…A number of studies have investigated test-retest variability of mean sensitivity with MP-1 microperimetry [4,7,8]. Weingessel et al [4], for instance, showed good reliability for macular sensitivity and fixation stability in healthy subjects and AMD patients by using (MP-1) in patients with different macular diseases and showed that the test-retest variability is lowest for mean sensitivity and highest for point-wise sensitivity.…”

“…Weingessel et al [4], for instance, showed good reliability for macular sensitivity and fixation stability in healthy subjects and AMD patients by using (MP-1) in patients with different macular diseases and showed that the test-retest variability is lowest for mean sensitivity and highest for point-wise sensitivity. Wong et al [8] investigated the intersession test-retest variability of topography-and threshold-based parameters, and a statistically significant decline in mean sensitivity from the first to both second and third tests was detected. Nidek MP-1 microperimetry.…”