Literature DB >> 20122737

Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers.

Aachal Kotecha1, Edward White, Patricio G Schlottmann, David F Garway-Heath.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT; Swiss Microtechnology AG, Port, Switzerland), and the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Buffalo, NY). A secondary objective was to assess agreement between the devices.
DESIGN: Evaluation of technology. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred participants; a mixture of glaucoma suspects, patients, and control volunteers.
METHODS: The IOP measurements were obtained with the GAT, DCT, and ORA by 2 of 3 experienced clinicians. Keratometry (CC) measurements were made using the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditech, AG, Jena, Germany). Three ORA corneal compensated IOP (IOPcc) measurements were obtained before the instillation of anesthesia, after which 2 GAT IOP and 3 DCT IOP measurements were obtained in a randomized order. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured using an ultrasound pachymeter. The average ORA corneal response factor (CRF) and the average DCT ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) were determined. Intraobserver variability was calculated by the repeatability coefficient. Interobserver variability (measurement reproducibility) and device agreement were calculated by Bland-Altman analysis (mean difference [bias] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]). The effect of corneal characteristics (CC, CCT, and CRF) on the IOP measurement differences between tonometers also was determined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeatability and reproducibility of the GAT, DCT, and ORA IOPcc and agreement between tonometers.
RESULTS: The repeatability coefficients for GAT, DCT, and ORA were 2.2, 2.3, and 4.3 mmHg, respectively. The intraobserver variability of ORA measurements was shown to be significantly associated with OPA and to a lesser degree with the quality of ORA waveform scans. The interobserver bias (95% LoA) was -0.8 (+/-3.9) mmHg for GAT -0.2 (+/-2.8) mmHg for DCT and -0.3 (+/-3.9) mmHg for ORA IOPcc. On average, GAT under-read both DCT and ORA IOP measurements by approximately 2 mmHg. The IOP measurement differences were better predicted by CRF than CCT.
CONCLUSIONS: The DCT shows excellent measurement precision, displaying the best repeatability and reproducibility of the 3 tonometers. Corneal stiffness, as defined using CRF, was associated significantly with agreement between devices. The IOP measurements with each device are not interchangeable. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20122737     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  39 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.  Repeatability of intra-ocular pressure and central corneal thickness measurements provided by a non-contact method of tonometry and pachymetry.

Authors:  Domenico Schiano Lomoriello; Marco Lombardo; Laura Tranchina; Francesco Oddone; Sebastiano Serrao; Pietro Ducoli
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  [Sources of error in Goldmann applanation tonometry].

Authors:  F Rüfer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  24-hour IOP telemetry in the nonhuman primate: implant system performance and initial characterization of IOP at multiple timescales.

Authors:  J Crawford Downs; Claude F Burgoyne; William P Seigfreid; Juan F Reynaud; Nicholas G Strouthidis; Verney Sallee
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  IOP measurement: importance of methodology.

Authors:  Asimina Mataftsi; Paraskevi Malamaki; Nikolaos Kappos
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 6.  [Is there a connection between intraocular pressure and blood pressure? Results of the Gutenberg Health Study and review of the current study situation].

Authors:  R Höhn; A Mirshahi; I Zwiener; D Laubert-Reh; N Pfeiffer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.059

7.  A technician-delivered 'virtual clinic' for triaging low-risk glaucoma referrals.

Authors:  A Kotecha; J Brookes; P J Foster
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 8.  Tonometers-which one should I use?

Authors:  Kanza Aziz; David S Friedman
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Effects of glaucoma and central corneal thickness on optic nerve head biomechanics.

Authors:  Nilgün Özkan Aksoy; Burçin Çakır; Yakup Ersel Aksoy; Kadriye Demir Boncukçu; Sedat Özmen; Erkan Çelik; Gürsoy Alagöz
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 10.  IOP telemetry in the nonhuman primate.

Authors:  J Crawford Downs
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 3.467

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.