Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time

James S.W. Wolffsohn*, Stephen J. Anderson, J. Mitchell, A. Woodcock, M. Rubinstein, T. Ffytche, A. Browning, K. Willbond, W.M. Amoaku, C. Bradley

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function. Methods: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery. Results: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable. Conclusions: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)432-434
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume90
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Macular Degeneration
Visual Acuity
Glare
Contrast Sensitivity

Keywords

  • repeatability
  • Eger macular stressometer
  • photostress recovery
  • visual function

Cite this

Wolffsohn, James S.W. ; Anderson, Stephen J. ; Mitchell, J. ; Woodcock, A. ; Rubinstein, M. ; Ffytche, T. ; Browning, A. ; Willbond, K. ; Amoaku, W.M. ; Bradley, C. / Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time. In: British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006 ; Vol. 90, No. 4. pp. 432-434.
@article{ef0e482a5efa416c9515f78706557b11,
title = "Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time",
abstract = "Aim: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function. Methods: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery. Results: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable. Conclusions: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.",
keywords = "repeatability, Eger macular stressometer, photostress recovery, visual function",
author = "Wolffsohn, {James S.W.} and Anderson, {Stephen J.} and J. Mitchell and A. Woodcock and M. Rubinstein and T. Ffytche and A. Browning and K. Willbond and W.M. Amoaku and C. Bradley",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1136/bjo.2005.085787",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
pages = "432--434",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "4",

}

Wolffsohn, JSW, Anderson, SJ, Mitchell, J, Woodcock, A, Rubinstein, M, Ffytche, T, Browning, A, Willbond, K, Amoaku, WM & Bradley, C 2006, 'Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time', British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 432-434. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.085787

Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time. / Wolffsohn, James S.W.; Anderson, Stephen J.; Mitchell, J.; Woodcock, A.; Rubinstein, M.; Ffytche, T.; Browning, A.; Willbond, K.; Amoaku, W.M.; Bradley, C.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 90, No. 4, 04.2006, p. 432-434.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of age related macular degeneration on the Eger macular stressometer photostress recovery time

AU - Wolffsohn, James S.W.

AU - Anderson, Stephen J.

AU - Mitchell, J.

AU - Woodcock, A.

AU - Rubinstein, M.

AU - Ffytche, T.

AU - Browning, A.

AU - Willbond, K.

AU - Amoaku, W.M.

AU - Bradley, C.

PY - 2006/4

Y1 - 2006/4

N2 - Aim: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function. Methods: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery. Results: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable. Conclusions: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.

AB - Aim: To assess the repeatability of Eger macular stressometer (EMS) measures of photostress recovery and determine their association with other measures of visual function. Methods: EMS photostress recovery time was measured in 90 patients with bilateral exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 with bilateral atrophic AMD and 47 with both forms of the condition (mean age 79 (SD 13) years). Measurements were made on two occasions separated by 1 year. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by repeating the measures after a 10 minute recovery period at the first visit. Distance visual acuity was measured with a logMAR chart, near visual acuity with a MNRead chart at 25 cm, contrast sensitivity with a Pelli-Robson chart, and the presence of central visual disturbance assessed with an Amsler grid. A questionnaire was used to assess self reported difficulties with glare recovery. Results: The average EMS recovery time was 11.0 (SD 8.9) seconds, decreasing by 1.6 (5.2) seconds on repeated measurement (p<0.05). EMS photostress recovery was not correlated with visual function measures or subjective difficulties with lights (p>0.05). EMS photostress recovery time did not predict those whose vision decreased over the following year compared with those among whom it remained stable. Conclusions: The EMS test is not a useful tool in determining the severity or progression of AMD.

KW - repeatability

KW - Eger macular stressometer

KW - photostress recovery

KW - visual function

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645299044&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://bjo.bmj.com/content/90/4/432.abstract

U2 - 10.1136/bjo.2005.085787

DO - 10.1136/bjo.2005.085787

M3 - Article

C2 - 16547321

VL - 90

SP - 432

EP - 434

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 4

ER -