Literature DB >> 15722303

Transpalpebral tonometry: reliability and comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry and palpation in healthy volunteers.

A Troost1, S H Yun, K Specht, F Krummenauer, O Schwenn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: TGDc-01 is a new, portable, transpalpebral tonometry device. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of this method, including intraobserver and interobserver deviations, and to compare the results with those of Goldmann applanation tonometry and palpation of intraocular pressure (IOP).
METHODS: A total of 40 eyes of 20 healthy volunteers were included. Two independent parallel observers (1 and 2) performed three replicate measurements per eye, respectively, both using TGDc01 tonometry, one observer (3) performed three replicate measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, and one observer (4) measured the IOP via palpation. Intraindividual deviations within and between both observers using TGDc-01 tonometry and between all three methods were investigated about clinically relevance by comparison of medians and quartiles, statistically significance by pairwise sign tests. Comparisons between observers and methods were based on averaged IOP values of the three individual measurements for each observer and each patient. Intraobserver deviations were analysed by means of Friedman tests.
RESULTS: Observers 1 and 2 showed a statistically significant intraobserver deviation when using TGCc-01 (Friedman p = 0.007 for observer 1 and p = 0.002 for observer 2). There was no statistically significant interobserver deviation between observers 1 and 2 (sign test p = 0.200); however, in 45% of the eyes interobserver deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mm Hg. The median intraindividual deviation between TGDc-01 and Goldmann (TGDc-01 minus Goldmann) was 0 mm Hg (interquartile range -1; 2 mm Hg; sign test p = 0.522); but deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mm Hg for 38% of the 40 eyes. Median intraindividual deviation between TGDc-01 and palpation (TGDc-01 minus palpation) was -2 mm Hg (interquartile range -4; 1 mm Hg; sign test p = 0.018), but deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mmHg for 43% of eyes. Median intraindividual deviation between Goldmann and palpation (palpation minus Goldmann) was 2 mm Hg (interquartile range -2; 4 mm Hg; p = 0.429), but deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mm Hg in 48% of the eyes.
CONCLUSION: Interobserver deviations using TGDc-01 tonometry and intraindividual deviations between TGDc-01 tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and palpation of IOP were found to be clinically relevant. Thus, according to our results TGDc-01 could not be established as a substitute or diagnostic alternative method for Goldmann applanation tonometry. But as deviations between TGDc01 and Goldmann turned out smaller than between palpation of IOP and Goldmann, TGDc-01 seems to provide a better choice for tonometry in patients, in whom Goldmann applanation tonometry is not possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15722303      PMCID: PMC1772547          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2004.050211

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  11 in total

1.  The biometrical comparison of cardiac imaging methods.

Authors:  F Krummenauer; I Genevrière; U Nixdorff
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  [Reproducibility of measurement of ocular pulse amplitude and intraocular pressure using Smartlens].

Authors:  A Vogel; S Beck; O Schwenn; F Grus; F Krummenauer; N Pfeiffer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  New Tonopen XL: comparison with the Goldmann tonometer.

Authors:  M Iester; A Mermoud; F Achache; S Roy
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  The clinical application of the Goldmann applanation tonometer.

Authors:  T A SCHMIDT
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1960-05       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Clinical comparison of two intraocular pressure measurement methods: SmartLens dynamic observing tonography versus Goldmann.

Authors:  R Troost; A Vogel; S Beck; O Schwenn; F Grus; N Pfeiffer
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Repeated applanation tonometry.

Authors:  R A Moses; C H Liu
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1968-07       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Accuracy of Goldmann tonometry in clinical practice.

Authors:  S Sudesh; M J Moseley; J R Thompson
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)       Date:  1993-04

9.  Sources of variability in the results of applanation tonometry.

Authors:  M A Motolko; F Feldman; M Hyde; D Hudy
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 1.882

10.  [Transpalpebral tonometry with a digital tonometer in healthy eyes and after penetrating keratoplasty].

Authors:  M Amm; J Hedderich
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.059

View more
  10 in total

1.  Transpalpebral measurement of intraocular pressure using the Diaton tonometer versus standard Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Authors:  Yuehua Li; Jingming Shi; Xuanchu Duan; Fang Fan
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-05-22       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Evaluation of the impedance tonometers TGDc-01 and iCare according to the international ocular tonometer standards ISO 8612.

Authors:  Peter Christian Ruokonen; Thomas Schwenteck; Jörg Draeger
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-02-21       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Effects of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measured with three different tonometers.

Authors:  Hiroki Murase; Akira Sawada; Kiyofumi Mochizuki; Tetsuya Yamamoto
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  [Glaucoma attack following Hughes tarsoconjunctival flap: what should be done?].

Authors:  E Bertelmann; N Minko; N Torun
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  Central corneal thickness and Diaton transpalpebral tonometry.

Authors:  Mustafa Ilker Toker; Ayse Vural; Haydar Erdogan; Aysen Topalkara; Mustafa Kemal Arici
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  [Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements in the course of product certification according to EN ISO 8612:2001].

Authors:  E M Hoffmann; N Pfeiffer; L Barleon; F H Grus
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.059

7.  Change in intraocular pressure during point-of-care ultrasound.

Authors:  Cameron Berg; Stephanie J Doniger; Brita Zaia; Sarah R Williams
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-03-06

8.  Effects of Scleral Contact Lenses for Keratoconus Management on Visual Quality and Intraocular Pressure.

Authors:  Martina Formisano; Federica Franzone; Ludovico Alisi; Santino Pistella; Leopoldo Spadea
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 2.423

9.  Design, methodology, and preliminary results of the follow-up of a population-based cohort study in rural area of northern China: Handan Eye Study.

Authors:  Kai Cao; Jie Hao; Ye Zhang; Ai-Lian Hu; Xiao-Hui Yang; Si-Zhen Li; Bing-Song Wang; Qing Zhang; Jian-Ping Hu; Cai-Xia Lin; Mayinuer Yusufu; Ning-Li Wang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 2.628

10.  Comparison of Pneumatonometry and Transpalpebral Tonometry Measurements of Intraocular Pressure during Scleral Lens Wear.

Authors:  Jennifer Swingle Fogt; Cherie B Nau; Muriel Schornack; Ellen Shorter; Amy Nau; Jennifer S Harthan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.106

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.