Literature DB >> 19900196

Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice.

Jose M Martinez-de-la-Casa1, Maria Jimenez-Santos, Federico Saenz-Frances, Maria Matilla-Rodero, Carmen Mendez-Hernandez, Rocio Herrero-Vanrell, Julian Garcia-Feijoo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare rebound tonometry (RBT) and noncontact tonometry (NCT) using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as reference.
METHODS: The study sample was comprised of 108 eyes of 108 subjects consecutively examined at a general ophthalmology clinic. The order of use of the three tonometers was randomized at the study outset. The difference between the methods was plotted against the mean to compare the tonometers. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t-test and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated. Differences with respect to GAT were assessed according to the international standard for ocular tonometers (ISO 8612).
RESULTS: Mean intraocular pressures (IOPs ± SD) obtained using the three instruments were GAT 17.5 ± 3.8 mmHg; RBT 18.5 ± 5.5 mmHg and NCT 17.4 ± 5.6 mmHg. The 95% LoA were from -7.9 to +7.7 mmHg for NCT-GAT and from -6.8 mmHg to +8.7 mmHg for RBT-GAT. A difference with respect to GAT under ± 1 mmHg was observed in 11.1% of the eyes measured by NCT and 18.5% of eyes measured by RBT. According to the IOP ranges established by the ISO 8612, differences from GAT measurements greater than ± 5 mmHg were always above the accepted level of 5%. Correlations between IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) were significant for all three tonometers.
CONCLUSIONS: The rebound and noncontact tonometer behaved similarly when used to measure IOP taking GAT measurements as the reference standard. Neither tonometer fulfilled ISO 8612 requirements. Both were similarly influenced by CCT.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Acta Ophthalmol.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19900196     DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01774.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol        ISSN: 1755-375X            Impact factor:   3.761


  14 in total

1.  The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement.

Authors:  P G Firat; C Cankaya; S Doganay; M Cavdar; S Duman; E Ozsoy; B Koc
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes.

Authors:  Fatih Özcura; Nilgün Yildirim; Afsun Şahin; Ertuğrul Çolak
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Intraocular pressure measurement over soft contact lens by rebound tonometer: a comparative study.

Authors:  Senay Asik Nacaroglu; Emine Seker Un; Mehmet Giray Ersoz; Yelda Tasci
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 1.779

4.  Comparative measurement of intraocular pressure by Icare tonometry and Airpuff tonometry in healthy subjects and patients wearing therapeutic soft contact lenses.

Authors:  Alexandra Anton; Matthias Neuburger; Daniel Böhringer; Jens F Jordan
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Non-contact terahertz spectroscopic measurement of the intraocular pressure through corneal hydration mapping.

Authors:  Andrew Chen; Arjun Virk; Zachery Harris; Azin Abazari; Robert Honkanen; M Hassan Arbab
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 3.732

6.  Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure with an air-puff tonometer versus a Goldmann applanation tonometer.

Authors:  Qasim K Farhood
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-27

7.  The influence of corneal density and thickness on tonometry measurement with goldmann applanation, non-contact and iCare tonometry methods.

Authors:  Ahmed Lubbad; Irene Oluwatoba-Popoola; Melanie Haar; Carsten Framme; Anna Bajor
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 2.029

8.  Does rebound tonometry probe misalignment modify intraocular pressure measurements in human eyes?

Authors:  Ian G Beasley; Deborah S Laughton; Benjamin J Coldrick; Thomas E Drew; Marium Sallah; Leon N Davies
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 1.909

9.  The utility of rebound tonometer in late elderly subjects.

Authors:  Rei Sakata; Jiro Numaga
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 4.458

10.  Normal intraocular pressure in Egyptian children and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ibrahim Rezkallah Moussa; Rehab Rashad Kassem; Noha Ahmed Edris; Dalia Hamed Khalil
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 4.456

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.