PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' acceptance and intraocular pressure (IOP) readings of a new digital mobile tonometer (TGDc-01) and compare it to Goldmann applanation tonometry. METHOD: Measurements repeated five times with the TGDc-01 and three times with Goldmann tonometry were performed in 100 eyes of 100 patients by two independent investigators. Patients' acceptance of both techniques was evaluated by a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: The mean IOP with the TGDc-01 yielded 15.4 mmHg for investigator 1 and 12.7 mmHg for investigator 2 (range: 4-43 mmHg). Results of the measurements with Goldmann tonometry showed 17.6 mmHg for investigator 1 and 17.3 mmHg for investigator 2 (9-42 mmHg). The IOP difference of the two tonometry methods was highly significant (p<0.001). The intraobserver variability was 29% for investigator 1 and 8% for investigator 2. Mean IOP values of the two investigators taken with the TGDc-01 differed significantly (p<0.01) from each other by a mean of 2.6 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: The new mobile tonometer TGDc-01 is better accepted by patients but IOP values are significantly lower compared to Goldmann tonometry and variability is high. Regarding glaucoma diagnostics it seems to be less suitable than Goldmann tonometry.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' acceptance and intraocular pressure (IOP) readings of a new digital mobile tonometer (TGDc-01) and compare it to Goldmann applanation tonometry. METHOD: Measurements repeated five times with the TGDc-01 and three times with Goldmann tonometry were performed in 100 eyes of 100 patients by two independent investigators. Patients' acceptance of both techniques was evaluated by a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: The mean IOP with the TGDc-01 yielded 15.4 mmHg for investigator 1 and 12.7 mmHg for investigator 2 (range: 4-43 mmHg). Results of the measurements with Goldmann tonometry showed 17.6 mmHg for investigator 1 and 17.3 mmHg for investigator 2 (9-42 mmHg). The IOP difference of the two tonometry methods was highly significant (p<0.001). The intraobserver variability was 29% for investigator 1 and 8% for investigator 2. Mean IOP values of the two investigators taken with the TGDc-01 differed significantly (p<0.01) from each other by a mean of 2.6 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: The new mobile tonometer TGDc-01 is better accepted by patients but IOP values are significantly lower compared to Goldmann tonometry and variability is high. Regarding glaucoma diagnostics it seems to be less suitable than Goldmann tonometry.