4.6 Article

Impaired Mesopic Visual Acuity in Eyes with Early Age-Related Macular Degeneration

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 53, 期 11, 页码 7310-7314

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8649

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacion Investigacion Medica Mutua Madrilena Grant [FMM-02538/2008]
  2. Banco Santander-Universidad Complutense de Madrid Grant [GR 58/08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To determine photopic and mesopic distance high-contrast visual acuity (HC-VA) and low-contrast visual acuity (LC-VA) in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS. Measurements were made in 22 subjects with early AMD and 28 healthy control subjects. Inclusion criteria included a photopic HC-VA of 20/25 or better. Distance VA was measured using HC (96%) and LC (10%) Bailey-Lovie logMAR letter charts under photopic (85 cd/m(2)) and mesopic (0.1-0.2 cd/m(2)) luminance conditions. RESULTS. Mean mesopic distance HC-VA and LC-VA were significantly worse (0.1 logMAR and 0.28 logMAR, respectively) in the early AMD group than in the control group. Under mesopic conditions, the mean difference between LC-VA and HC-VA was significantly greater in the early AMD (0.45 logMAR) than the control group (0.27 logMAR). Mean differences between mesopic versus photopic HC-VA and mesopic versus photopic LC-VA were significantly greater in the early AMD than the control group (0.13 and 0.32 logMAR of difference between the means, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity were significantly greater for mesopic LC-VA than for mesopic HC-VA (Receiver Operating Characteristics, area under the curve [AUC], 0.94 +/- 0.030 and 0.76 +/- 0.067, respectively). AUC values for photopic HC-VA and LC-VA were below 0.70. CONCLUSIONS. Visual acuity testing under low luminance conditions emerged as an optimal quantitative measure of retinal function in early AMD. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 7310-7314) DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8649

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

4.6
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