OBJECTIVE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained by patients using the new Proview eye pressure monitor (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with those measured with the Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen (Mentor, Norwell, Mass). METHODS: Eighty-six patients (a total of 171 eyes) with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully completed the study. The IOP was measured by 3 methods in the following order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Proview eye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickness was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter. Separately for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values between measurement methods were assessed with paired t tests and also in multivariate models that tested the dependence of IOP difference on central corneal thickness. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P<.001) in the mean IOPs measured by the 3 different methods (Goldmann vs Proview, Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the difference was independent of the central corneal thickness. The differences between IOP measured by Goldmann and Proview were similar in all categories of patient-reported ease of using the Proview. CONCLUSIONS: The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are significantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen, and variations of the central corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldmann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.
OBJECTIVE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained by patients using the new Proview eye pressure monitor (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with those measured with the Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen (Mentor, Norwell, Mass). METHODS: Eighty-six patients (a total of 171 eyes) with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully completed the study. The IOP was measured by 3 methods in the following order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Proview eye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickness was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter. Separately for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values between measurement methods were assessed with paired t tests and also in multivariate models that tested the dependence of IOP difference on central corneal thickness. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P<.001) in the mean IOPs measured by the 3 different methods (Goldmann vs Proview, Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the difference was independent of the central corneal thickness. The differences between IOP measured by Goldmann and Proview were similar in all categories of patient-reported ease of using the Proview. CONCLUSIONS: The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are significantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen, and variations of the central corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldmann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.