Cargando…

The macular mapping test: a reliability study

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is the leading cause of visual disability in people over 60 years of age in the developed world. The success of treatment deteriorates with increased latency of diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the macular ma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bartlett, Hannah, Davies, Leon N, Eperjesi, Frank
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16092954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-5-18
_version_ 1782124928824246272
author Bartlett, Hannah
Davies, Leon N
Eperjesi, Frank
author_facet Bartlett, Hannah
Davies, Leon N
Eperjesi, Frank
author_sort Bartlett, Hannah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is the leading cause of visual disability in people over 60 years of age in the developed world. The success of treatment deteriorates with increased latency of diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the macular mapping test (MMT), and to investigate its potential as a screening tool. METHODS: The study population comprised of 31 healthy eyes of 31 participants. To assess reliability, four macular mapping test (MMT) measurements were taken in two sessions separated by one hour by two practitioners, with reversal of order in the second session. MMT readings were also taken from 17 age-related maculopathy (ARM), and 12 AMD affected eyes. RESULTS: For the normal cohort, average MMT scores ranged from 85.5 to 100.0 MMT points. Scores ranged from 79.0 to 99.0 for the ARM group and from 9.0 to 92.0 for the AMD group. MMT scores were reliable to within ± 7.0 points. The difference between AMD affected eyes and controls (z = 3.761, p = < 0.001) was significant. The difference between ARM affected eyes and controls was not significant (z = -0.216, p = 0.829). CONCLUSION: The reliability data shows that a change of 14 points or more is required to indicate a clinically significant change. This value is required for use of the MMT as an outcome measure in clinical trials. Although there was no difference between MMT scores from ARM affected eyes and controls, the MMT has the advantage over the Amsler grid in that it uses a letter target, has a peripheral fixation aid, and it provides a numerical score. This score could be beneficial in office and home monitoring of AMD progression, as well as an outcome measure in clinical research.
format Text
id pubmed-1208902
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-12089022005-09-15 The macular mapping test: a reliability study Bartlett, Hannah Davies, Leon N Eperjesi, Frank BMC Ophthalmol Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is the leading cause of visual disability in people over 60 years of age in the developed world. The success of treatment deteriorates with increased latency of diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the macular mapping test (MMT), and to investigate its potential as a screening tool. METHODS: The study population comprised of 31 healthy eyes of 31 participants. To assess reliability, four macular mapping test (MMT) measurements were taken in two sessions separated by one hour by two practitioners, with reversal of order in the second session. MMT readings were also taken from 17 age-related maculopathy (ARM), and 12 AMD affected eyes. RESULTS: For the normal cohort, average MMT scores ranged from 85.5 to 100.0 MMT points. Scores ranged from 79.0 to 99.0 for the ARM group and from 9.0 to 92.0 for the AMD group. MMT scores were reliable to within ± 7.0 points. The difference between AMD affected eyes and controls (z = 3.761, p = < 0.001) was significant. The difference between ARM affected eyes and controls was not significant (z = -0.216, p = 0.829). CONCLUSION: The reliability data shows that a change of 14 points or more is required to indicate a clinically significant change. This value is required for use of the MMT as an outcome measure in clinical trials. Although there was no difference between MMT scores from ARM affected eyes and controls, the MMT has the advantage over the Amsler grid in that it uses a letter target, has a peripheral fixation aid, and it provides a numerical score. This score could be beneficial in office and home monitoring of AMD progression, as well as an outcome measure in clinical research. BioMed Central 2005-08-10 /pmc/articles/PMC1208902/ /pubmed/16092954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-5-18 Text en Copyright © 2005 Bartlett et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Bartlett, Hannah
Davies, Leon N
Eperjesi, Frank
The macular mapping test: a reliability study
title The macular mapping test: a reliability study
title_full The macular mapping test: a reliability study
title_fullStr The macular mapping test: a reliability study
title_full_unstemmed The macular mapping test: a reliability study
title_short The macular mapping test: a reliability study
title_sort macular mapping test: a reliability study
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16092954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-5-18
work_keys_str_mv AT bartletthannah themacularmappingtestareliabilitystudy
AT daviesleonn themacularmappingtestareliabilitystudy
AT eperjesifrank themacularmappingtestareliabilitystudy
AT bartletthannah macularmappingtestareliabilitystudy
AT daviesleonn macularmappingtestareliabilitystudy
AT eperjesifrank macularmappingtestareliabilitystudy