Comparison Between MAIA and MP-3 In Healthy Subjects and Patients With Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Age-Related Macular Degeneration

• Published in: Investigative ophthalmology & visual science Vol. 66; no. 3; p. 59
• Main Authors: Marmalidou, Anna, Siddiqui, Haleema, Jamil, Muhammad Usman, Woo, Kwang Min, Yaghy, Antonio, Alibhai, A. Yasin, Takahashi, Hiroyuki, Kaiser, Stephanie, Effert, Keith, Zhao, Peter Y., Desai, Shilpa J., Robinson, Christopher C., Duker, Jay S., Waheed, Nadia K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 28.03.2025
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cross-Sectional Studies; Diabetes Mellitus - physiopathology; Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnosis; Diabetic Retinopathy - physiopathology; Female; Fundus Oculi; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Linear Models; Macula Lutea - diagnostic imaging; Macula Lutea - physiopathology; Macular Degeneration - diagnosis; Macular Degeneration - physiopathology; Male; Middle Aged; Retina; Scotoma - diagnosis; Scotoma - physiopathology; Visual Field Tests - instrumentation; Visual Field Tests - methods; Visual Field Tests - statistics & numerical data; Visual Fields - physiology; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1552-5783; 0146-0404; 1552-5783
• DOI: 10.1167/iovs.66.3.59

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. 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. 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). 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.