Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40980023›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Validation and Repeatability of Differential Light Sensitivity Measurements with the Novel MAIA Microperimetry Device.

Georg Ansari, Nina L Giudici, Giuseppe Cancian, Petra Rossouw, Chiara Rui, Alberto Rosso, Silvia Gazzina, Nicolas Feltgen, Kristina Pfau, Maximilian Pfau

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06071546 (Pre-market Monocentric Cross-sectional Clinical Investigation of MAIA on Healthy Subjects and Patients With Retinal Pathology), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06071546 nacompletednot on this map

Pre-market Monocentric Cross-sectional Clinical Investigation of MAIA on Healthy Subjects and Patients With Retinal Pathology: Agreement With MAIA 2013 EDITION Microperimeter and Repeatability Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentervue SpARan2023 to 2024Enrolled68ConditionsHealthy Eyes, Retinal DiseasesArmsMAIA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Georg AnsariDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Nina L GiudiciDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Giuseppe CancianDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Petra RossouwDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Chiara RuiCenterVue SpA, Padova, Italy.
Alberto RossoCenterVue SpA, Padova, Italy.
Silvia GazzinaCenterVue SpA, Padova, Italy.
Nicolas FeltgenDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kristina PfauDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Maximilian PfauDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Microperimetry is critical for the evaluation of macular light sensitivity, enabling disease monitoring in patients with either center-involving scotoma or initial sparing of the center. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity and repeatability of light sensitivity measurements with the novel Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA3) microperimeter compared with the established gold standard MAIA 2013 edition device (MAIA2). Design: A prospective, cross-sectional, premarket clinical investigation on a medical device in a tertiary referral center (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06071546). Participants: Thirty-four healthy volunteers (median age: 28 years, interquartile range [IQR]: [26-32] years) and 34 patients with retinal pathologies (66 years, IQR: [50.5-74.5] years) were enrolled. All participants underwent comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation, including best-corrected visual acuity testing and OCT imaging. The diagnosis of retinal disease in patients was confirmed through fundoscopy and imaging. Main Outcome Measures: Agreement between MAIA3 and MAIA2 measurements with mean sensitivity (MS) and at the pointwise sensitivity (PWS) level and test-retest (TRT) repeatability of MAIA3 and MAIA2 devices (using Bland-Altman statistics). Results: The bias for the agreement between MAIA3 and MAIA2 measurements was below the established International Organization for Standardization standard of <1 decibel (dB). Healthy participants showed a bias of 0.39 dB for both MS and PWS, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11-0.67 dB for MS, 0.30-0.48 dB for PWS. The bias in retinal patients was 0.76 dB (CI: 0.40-1.12 for MS, 0.59-0.93 dB for PWS). The overall bias was 0.57 dB (CI: 0.35-0.80 dB for MS and 0.48-0.67 dB for PWS). Overall TRT repeatability was similar between MAIA3 and MAIA2 devices for MS (Bland-Altman 95% limits of repeatability: -1.16 to 1.53 dB for MAIA3 and -1.49 to 2.06 dB for MAIA2). The examination duration with the MAIA3 device was shorter by 43 seconds compared with the MAIA2 device (median duration: 482.5 seconds [IQR: 451.8-537.5 seconds] for MAIA3 vs. 525.5 seconds [IQR: 500.8-562.3 seconds] for MAIA2). Conclusions: The MAIA3 microperimetry enables valid and reliable measurements of macular light sensitivity compared with the established device (MAIA2). Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Fundus-controlled perimetryMicroperimetryPremarket clinical investigation on a medical deviceRepeatabilityValidation

Identifiers

PMID40980023
PMCPMC12446776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.