4.2 Article

Reliability of a commercially available heterochromatic flicker photometer, the MPS2, for measuring the macular pigment optical density of a Japanese population

期刊

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 473-480

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10384-018-0588-3

关键词

Asian pigmented eyes; Heterochromatic flicker photometry; Macular pigment optical density; MPS2; validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The macular pigment optical density (MPOD) of a Japanese population was measured using a commercially based heterochromatic flicker photometer, the Macular Pigment Screener (MPS2). The objective of the study was to evaluate the accuracy and test-retest reliability of the MPS2 in Asian pigmented eyes. Experimental study to validate the medical instrument in humans. Twenty-four healthy Japanese participants with no systemic or eye diseases (men: 13, women: 11; mean [SD] age 38.6 [10.9 years]) were included. The concordance of the MPOD, obtained using the MPS2 and Macular Metrics II (MM2), and the test-retest reliability were examined. Determination of the MPOD was unsuccessful in 1 participant; thus, the MPOD of 23 participants was analyzed. The mean (SD) MPOD measured with the detail-mode of the MPS2 was 0.63 (0.18) and with that of the MM2, it was 0.72 (0.23). The former was significantly lower than the latter (P = .003, paired t test). The MPOD measured with the MPS2 and the MM2 showed good concordance (r = 0.79, P < .001, Pearson product moment correlation). Bland-Altman analyses showed no systematic errors between the MPS2 and the MM2. The intraclass correlation coefficient over 5 measurement times with the detail-mode of the MPS2 was 0.80, and the mean coefficient of variation was 9.4%. The high concordance with the MM2 and good test-retest reliability found by this study suggest that the MPS2 is acceptable for use in a Japanese population. However, the mean MPOD yielded by the MPS2 was significantly lower than that yielded by the MM2. Therefore, the MPS2 and MM2 are not interchangeable in a single study.

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

4.2
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