ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Comparison Between MAIA and MP-3 In Healthy Subjects and Patients With Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the comparability of mean sensitivity (MS) values obtained using the Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA; CenterVue S.p.A. [iCare], Padova, Italy) and Microperimeter-3 (MP-3; NIDEK CO., Ltd., Gamagori, Japan) microperimetry (MP) devices. Methods: This cross-sectional study includes subjects with healthy eyes, eyes with diabetes mellitus without diabetic retinopathy (DM no DR), diabetic retinopathy (DR), and non-exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Patients underwent testing on both MAIA and MP-3 MP devices, using a 10-2 macular grid with 68 stimuli and identical parameters. A diagnosis-adjusted linear regression model and mixed modeling mapped MP-3 MS to MAIA MS and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess the agreement. Results: One hundred eleven eyes (43 healthy eyes, 14 eyes with DM no DR, 32 eyes with DR, and 22 eyes with AMD) from 80 subjects (age = 57.2 ± 20.3 years) were enrolled. MAIA consistently showed higher MS than MP-3. The MP-3 device detected absolute scotomatous points in more eyes than MAIA (6 eyes [MAIA] vs. 10 eyes [MP-3]). Healthy eyes exhibited stronger agreements than those with DR (P < 0.001) or AMD (P = 0.015). Converting MP-3 to MAIA MS improved agreement and reduced coefficients of repeatability (CoRs) but did not fully account for inter-device variability. MP-3 classified more eyes as having relatively unstable or unstable fixation than MAIA (P = 0.014). Conclusions: Both devices effectively detect retinal functional changes and scotomas. The conversion methods developed in this study can aid cross-device comparisons, but retinal pathologies (DM and AMD) introduce additional inter-device variability. Future studies incorporating multiple devices should account for this variability in their study design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.