Battle of microperimeters: CenterVue MAIA vs Nidek MP-3
Values generated by the CenterVue Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) vs the Nidek Microperimetry-3 (MP-3) microperimeter are higher for retinal sensitivity but lower for luminance and contrast sensitivity, suggests a recent study.
However, the relationships appear fairly consistent, and application of a standard correction factor allows data to be inter-related, at least for normal eyes, according to the investigators.
The mean retinal sensitivity measures were significantly lower (p<0.0001) with the MP-3 (25.02±1.06 dB; range, 20.90–26.70) compared with the MAIA (30.68±0.74 dB; range, 28–31.84). The luminosity levels measured by the MP-3 (7.75±1.31 asb; range, 6.44–9.06) were significantly higher (p<0.0001) vs those of the MAIA (0.92±0.14 asb; range, 0.78–1.06). The MP-3 (0.94±0.33 log units; range, 0.61–1.27) also measured significantly higher contrast sensitivity compared with the MAIA (0.23±0.03 log units; range, 0.20–0.26).
The intraclass coefficient between the two instruments, despite the absolute differences, was 0.85 (95 percent CI, 0.70‒0.92) after applying a standard correction factor to each data point (MAIA sensitivity=MP-3 sensitivity+5.65), with a mean difference of 0.01 between MP-3 and MAIA.
The investigators conducted a prospective comparative study on 31 eyes of 23 healthy participants who underwent complete ophthalmological examination including retinal sensitivity assessments using two microperimeters: the MP-3 by Nidek Technologies and the MAIA by CenterVue. They analysed the mean retinal sensitivity as well as its corresponding luminance and contrast between the two devices. Interdevice reproducibility and level of agreement between the sensitivity values of the devices were also evaluated.