Comparison between Macular Pigment Optical Density Measurements Using Two-Wavelength Autofluorescence and Heterochromatic Flicker Photometry Techniques

Canovas, Renata; Lima, Verônica Castro; Garcia, Patricia; Morini, Chiara; Prata, Tiago S.; Rosen, Richard B.

doi:10.1167/iovs.09-3608

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15,16 Even single-wavelength FAF has been previously employed to detect MP and even if it resulted less reliable when compared with the double-wavelength technique especially in peripheral areas, it showed high repeatability and a good agreement between the techniques was found within the fovea center. 17 Quantitative autofluorescence (qAF), recently introduced, seems a more standardized and repeatable technique compared to FAF and has been studied in the evaluation of autofluorescence in healthy and pathologic eyes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Macular Pigment Density and Quantitative Fundus Autofluorescence in Young Healthy Subjects

Eandi

Nassisi

Lavia

et al. 2017

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE. To measure macular pigment (MP) and find possible correlation between heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP) and quantitative autofluorescence (qAF) in young healthy subjects. METHODS.We enrolled 80 eyes of 40 young healthy subjects. Macular pigment optical density (MPOD) was automatically calculated with a macular pigment screener (MPS; MPOD HFP ). We calculated qAF comparing gray levels (GL) of qAF images with GL of internal reference of a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. A raster of concentric rings was used to automatically calculate foveal qAF (qAFF) values (08-1.28); inner ring (1.38-4.38; qAF 3 ); middle ring (4.58-78; qAF 6 ); and outer ring (7.28-9.78; qAF 8 ). The test-retest coefficient of repeatability was calculated with Bland-Altman method. The between-eyes coefficient of agreement and correlation between the two techniques were calculated. Finally, an estimation of MPOD from qAF was performed (MPOD-AF), to find possible direct correlations with MPOD HFP obtained with the MPS II.RESULTS. Paired data sets of repeated measurements were not statistically different for MPS II (P ¼ 0.66); log qAF F (P ¼ 0.95); log qAF 3 (P ¼ 0.48); log qAF 6 (P ¼ 0.4); and log qAF 8 (P ¼ 0.56). Stepwise regression analysis showed negative correlation between MPS II and log qAF F values (R 2 ¼ 0.35) with Spearman coefficient (q) of À0.60 (P < 0.01) and log qAF 3 (R 2 ¼ 0.18; q ¼ À0.38.; P < 0.01). No correlation was found between MPS II and log qAF 6 (q ¼ 0.01, P ¼ 0.93), neither with log qAF 8 (q ¼ À0.05, P ¼ 0.66).CONCLUSIONS. In young healthy subjects, a negative correlation between qAF values and MPOD HFP was found in the central degrees. However, qAF and HFP do not seem to be interchangeable: they represent two opposite ways of estimating MP.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Macular Pigment Density and Quantitative Fundus Autofluorescence in Young Healthy Subjects

Eandi

Nassisi

Lavia

et al. 2017

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2001; Canovas et al. 2010), the presence of a ring‐like structure or a secondary peak within the MP spatial profile has been demonstrated by HFP (Hammond et al. 1997; Kirby et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Repeatability of the macular pigment spatial profile: A comparison of objective versus subjective classification

Ctori

Mahroo

Williams

et al. 2018

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeClassification of macular pigment (MP) spatial profile phenotypes varies and is often based on subjective visualisation. We investigated repeatability of MP optical density (MPOD) comparing an objective versus subjective profiling system.MethodsThe coefficient of repeatability (CoR) was calculated for point MPOD values (0–3.8°) obtained by dual‐wavelength fundus autofluorescence (FAF) from two scans obtained in a single visit of 40 healthy individuals (39 ± 9 years). For each individual's dataset, the MP profile was classified as exponential, ring‐like or central dip using an objective method (based on deviations away from an exponential fit), as well as by subjective visual profiling. Existing FAF images of 88 monozygotic (MZ) and 69 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs were reanalysed using the objective profiling method and concordance and heritability of ring‐like profiles determined.ResultsThe CoR was 0.23 at 0° and 0.06 at 0.8°. Agreement of objective profiling between scans was excellent (κ = 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; p < 0.0005). Subjective profiling showed moderate agreement between scans (κ = 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; p < 0.0005). Agreement between objective and subjective classification was low (κ = 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; p = 0.02). Concordance for the ring‐like profile using objective profiling was 0.74 for MZ compared to 0.36 for DZ twins. Heritability was calculated as 81.5% (95% confidence interval 61.1–93.1%).ConclusionCompared to visual assessment, objective MP profiling is a more reliable method and should be considered in future observational and interventional studies. In addition, MP profile phenotypes showed high heritability.

show abstract

“…As such, it is often used as a standard against which other techniques are validated [e.g., [56][57][58][59][60], although at present there is no true 'goldstandard' in vivo measure of MPOD.…”

Section: Heterochromatic Flicker Photometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most devices use a central stimulus that corresponds to a visual angle of 1°as standard, although there are exceptions; Landrum's 1.5° [45] and Werner's 0.70° [66], for instance. Moreover, many studies have used smaller test stimuli such as 12′ or 30′ when mapping the spatial profile of macular pigment [42,44,49,50,52,60,64,[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79].…”

Section: Test Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring macular pigment optical density in vivo: a review of techniques

Howells

Eperjesi

Bartlett

2011

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

118

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review comprehensively details the procedure, instrumentation, assumptions, validity and reliability of each MPOD measurement technique currently available, along with their respective advantages and disadvantages. This leads us to conclude that development of a commercial instrument, based on fundus reflectometry or fundus autofluorescence, would be beneficial to macular pigment research and would support MPOD screening in a clinical setting.

show abstract

Comparison between Macular Pigment Optical Density Measurements Using Two-Wavelength Autofluorescence and Heterochromatic Flicker Photometry Techniques

Cited by 23 publications

References 28 publications

Macular Pigment Density and Quantitative Fundus Autofluorescence in Young Healthy Subjects

Macular Pigment Density and Quantitative Fundus Autofluorescence in Young Healthy Subjects

Repeatability of the macular pigment spatial profile: A comparison of objective versus subjective classification

Measuring macular pigment optical density in vivo: a review of techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About