4.3 Article

M-charts as a tool for quantifying metamorphopsia in age-related macular degeneration treated with the bevacizumab injections

期刊

BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2415-13-13

关键词

Age-related macular degeneration; M-charts; Amsler grid; Metamorphopsia; Intravitreal injections

资金

  1. Medical University of Lublin [DS 507/12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This article is aimed to assess quantitatively metamorphopsia using M-charts in patients suffering from wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with the intravitreal bevacizumab injections and to compare the results with traditional Amsler grid and ocular coherence tomography (OCT). Methods: Thirty-six patients diagnosed with wet AMD were examined one day before and one month after the intraocular injection of bevacizumab. Horizontal and vertical metamorphopsia scores using M-charts, distance visual acuity, Amsler test and OCT were performed at each visit. Additionally, 23 healthy subjects were examined as a control group. Results: The rate of metamorphopsia detection was 89% with M-charts and 69% with Amsler test. The horizontal metamorphopsia score improved in 22 patients, the vertical metamorphopsia score improved in 16 patients, the Amsler grid results improved in 6 patients, visual acuity improved in 17 patients. There was no correlation between the degree of metamorphopsia and the visual acuity or the central retinal thickness (CRT). The specificity of both the M-charts and Amsler grid was 100%. Conclusions: The rate of metamorphopsia detection in wet AMD patients was better with M-charts than with Amsler grid. M-charts may be used in the assessment of efficacy of treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab injections as another outcome measure, moreover they can be used even at home for the self-assessment. M-charts provide additional information concerning the visual function, independent of the visual acuity, CRT and morphological changes in OCT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据