Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To compare the efficacy of scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry (SLO-MP) and Humphrey visual fields in detecting macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.
Design: Prospective cohort study.
Participants: 25 patients with advanced primary open angle glaucoma and 2 consecutive abnormal Humphrey 10-2 SITA Standard visual field tests.
Methods: Thirty-six eyes of 25 patients with 2 consecutive abnormal Humphrey 10-2 SITA Standard (H10) visual fields were retested with a modified 10-2 SLO-MP within 3 months of the last reliable H10. A standardized grid was used to mark the macula. Primary outcome was change in mean macular sensitivity (dB; H10 and SLO-MP) in relation to mean macular retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness (µm) by SLO- optical coherence tomography (SLO-OCT). Secondary outcome was comparison of reliability indices for both tests. Linear regression was used for analysis.
Results: Mean macular sensitivity was significantly lower in SLO-MP (9.33 ± 3.37 dB) than H10 (18.83 ± 6.46 dB; p < 0.0001). Mean macular RNFL thickness correlated significantly with retinal sensitivity by both SLO-MP (r = 0.39, p < 0.02) and H10 (r = 0.37, p < 0.03). Fixation losses were better controlled in SLO-MP (0.38 ± 1.1) than H10 (4.28 ± 7.9; p = 0.008). False-positive responses were similar (SLO-MP: 2.25 ± 4.53, H10: 1.78 ± 3.33; p = 0.80). A statistically significant difference was noted in the false-negative responses (SLO-MP: 26.87 ± 25.24, H10: 5.33 ± 9.70; p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Macular sensitivity determined by both H10 and SLO-MP correlates significantly with mean macular RNFL thickness measured by SLO-OCT. Precise localization of the macula in SLO-MP results in lower fixation losses. Detection of denser field defects by SLO-MP results in higher false-negative responses. A larger sample size is needed to further study the value of this diagnostic tool.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.08.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!