MP-1 Biofeedback: Pattern Stimulus Versus Audio-feedback in AMD
|First Submitted Date ICMJE||November 17, 2010|
|First Posted Date ICMJE||November 18, 2010|
|Last Update Posted Date||November 18, 2010|
|Start Date ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||improvement of visual acuity|
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Change History||No Changes Posted|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||improvement of retinal sensitivity|
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||MP-1 Biofeedback: Pattern Stimulus Versus Audio-feedback in AMD|
|Official Title ICMJE||MP-1 Biofeedback: Pattern Stimulus Versus Audio-feedback in Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)|
Biofeedback techniques have demonstrated their uselfulness in the treatment of maculopathies. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of visual rehabilitation by means of two different types of biofeedback techniques in patients with age related macular degeneration (AMD).
30 patients bilaterally affected by AMD were enrolled with a mean age of 76,38±8,77 yrs. Patients were randomly divided in two groups: Group A was treated with an acoustic biofeedback, Group B with luminous biofeedback of a black and white checkerboard flickering during the examination. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination. Rehabilitation consisted in 12 training sessions of 10 minutes for each eye performed once a week for both groups. Statistical analysis was performed using t- test. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Group A: visual acuity at the end of rehabilitation had improved, but this result was not statistically significant (p=0.054), reading speed showed a significant statistical improvement (p=0.031), as well as the fixation stability (p=0.0023) and single point mean retinal sensitivity value (p=0.044).
Group B: visual acuity improvement at the end of rehabilitation was statistically significant (p=0.048), reading speed showed a statistically significant improvement (p=0.024), as well as fixation stability (p=0.0012) and mean single point retinal sensitivity value (p=0.027). Final results for both groups were compared and patients in group B showed results which were statistically more significant.
A contrast rich flickering biofeedback stimulus showed a statistically significant improvement in training the patients to modify their preferred retinal locus (PRL) in comparison to acoustic biofeedback. It is possible that increased involvement of the various retinal cell populations with visual stimuli create more efficient ganglion cell response that better utilize the residual retinal function.
|Detailed Description||Not Provided|
|Study Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Not Provided|
|Study Design ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Condition ICMJE||Age Related Macular Degeneration|
|Intervention ICMJE||Behavioral: biofeedback training|
|Study Arms||Not Provided|
|Publications *||Vingolo EM, Salvatore S, Limoli PG. MP-1 biofeedback: luminous pattern stimulus versus acoustic biofeedback in age related macular degeneration (AMD). Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2013 Mar;38(1):11-6. doi: 10.1007/s10484-012-9203-4.|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Completed|
|Enrollment ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
Diagnosis of neovascular AMD was based on a complete ophthalmological examination including anterior and posterior segment biomicroscopy, Fluorescein Angiography (Heidelberg HRA2 FA module Heidelberg Germany), spectral domain OCT (Heidelberg HRA-2 OCT module Heidelberg Germany), microperimetry with MP-1 (NIDEK Technologies Padua Italy).
|Ages||56 Years to 89 Years (Adult, Senior)|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||Not Provided|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||Italy|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT01243645|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||BIO0110|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||No|
|U.S. FDA-regulated Product||Not Provided|
|IPD Sharing Statement||Not Provided|
|Responsible Party||Not Provided|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||University of Roma La Sapienza|
|Collaborators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Investigators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|PRS Account||University of Roma La Sapienza|
|Verification Date||September 2010|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP