May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Measurement of Macular Pigment Optical Density: DensitometerTM versus MaculometerTM
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • E. Loane
    Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
    Chemical and Life Sciences,
  • J. Stack
    Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
    Physical and Quantitative Sciences,
  • S. Beatty
    Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
    Chemical and Life Sciences,
  • J. M. Nolan
    Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
    Chemical and Life Sciences,
  • Macular Pigment Research Group
    Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships E. Loane, None; J. Stack, None; S. Beatty, None; J.M. Nolan, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 2133. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      E. Loane, J. Stack, S. Beatty, J. M. Nolan, Macular Pigment Research Group; Measurement of Macular Pigment Optical Density: DensitometerTM versus MaculometerTM. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):2133. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose:: To compare the macular pigment optical density (MPOD) values obtained with two different heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP) instruments, and to explore the implications of our findings with respect to the general principles of HFP methodology.

Methods:: We recruited 121 healthy subjects, 12 of whom were excluded due to an inability to use one or both HFP instruments. Demographic and health details were recorded. MPOD was measured using the two HFP instruments (the Eyemet MaculometerTM and the Macular Metrics DensitometerTM). The MaculometerTM has a reference location at 5.5o eccentricity and has a fixed flicker frequency (foveal target: 18 Hz and parafoveal target 13 Hz), whereas the DensitometerTM has a reference location at 7o and has the option to adjust flicker frequency.

Results:: The mean (± SD) MPOD measured with the MaculometerTM was 0.394 (± 0.170), and that with the DensitometerTM was 0.395 (± 0.189). The mean difference (± SD) in MPOD (MaculometerTM-DensitometerTM) was -0.001 (± 0.088). The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference was -0.018 to 0.016. For 50 of the 109 subjects (45.9%), the MaculometerTM MPOD measurement was lower than that of the DensitometerTM, for 5 subjects (4.6%) the readings were identical, and for 54 subjects (49.5%) the MaculometerTM reading was higher. Regression of MaculometerTM-DensitometerTM difference on the variables age, gender, BMI, family history, and average MPOD produced the equation: diff = 0.127 - 0.002(age) - 0.122(average MPOD), the other variables not being significant at the 5% level (R2 = 0.10).

Conclusions:: As the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference contains 0, we conclude that there is, on average, no difference in measurements provided by the two instruments. However, it appears from the regression analysis that the MaculometerTM -DensitometerTM difference becomes more negative the older the subject and/or the greater their MPOD.

Keywords: macular pigment • age-related macular degeneration • clinical research methodology 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×