Kelechi C Ogbuehi1, Turki M Almubrad. 1. Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. kelechi@ksu.edu.sa
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the Keeler Pulsair EasyEye noncontact tonometer in a normotensive population. METHODS: This masked prospective clinical study included 72 right eyes of 72 subjects. Two sets of intraocular pressure measurements were made 1 week apart. Intraocular pressure assessment with the Goldmann tonometer was always subsequent to that with the noncontact tonometer. Each method was assessed for within-session and test-retest repeatability and both methods were assessed for limits of agreement, twice. The level of significance for this study was 0.05. RESULTS: Both methods were repeatable within-sessions to within +/-2 mm Hg, and between sessions to within +/-3 mm Hg. Neither the within-session differences nor the between session differences differed significantly between the Goldmann tonometer and the Pulsair EasyEye noncontact tonometer. The mean differences (+/-SD) between both methods (0.1 +/- 1.6 mm Hg and 0.05 +/- 1.7 mm Hg, for the first and second sessions, respectively) were not statistically significant, but the intraocular pressure measured with the Pulsair EasyEye tonometer was consistently higher than that measured with the Goldmann tonometer. CONCLUSIONS: The Pulsair EasyEye noncontact tonometer is considered an accurate reliable method in the normotensive population studied but because of a systematic bias in a small number of subjects, it cannot be used interchangeably with the Goldmann tonometer.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the Keeler Pulsair EasyEye noncontact tonometer in a normotensive population. METHODS: This masked prospective clinical study included 72 right eyes of 72 subjects. Two sets of intraocular pressure measurements were made 1 week apart. Intraocular pressure assessment with the Goldmann tonometer was always subsequent to that with the noncontact tonometer. Each method was assessed for within-session and test-retest repeatability and both methods were assessed for limits of agreement, twice. The level of significance for this study was 0.05. RESULTS: Both methods were repeatable within-sessions to within +/-2 mm Hg, and between sessions to within +/-3 mm Hg. Neither the within-session differences nor the between session differences differed significantly between the Goldmann tonometer and the Pulsair EasyEye noncontact tonometer. The mean differences (+/-SD) between both methods (0.1 +/- 1.6 mm Hg and 0.05 +/- 1.7 mm Hg, for the first and second sessions, respectively) were not statistically significant, but the intraocular pressure measured with the Pulsair EasyEye tonometer was consistently higher than that measured with the Goldmann tonometer. CONCLUSIONS: The Pulsair EasyEye noncontact tonometer is considered an accurate reliable method in the normotensive population studied but because of a systematic bias in a small number of subjects, it cannot be used interchangeably with the Goldmann tonometer.