Literature DB >> 20499265

Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer.

Charlotte Renier1, Thierry Zeyen, Steffen Fieuws, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg Stalmans.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT (P < 0.01). Only the ORAcc and DCT were comparable. ORAcc and DCT significantly over-estimated IOP compared to GAT and for ORAcc this difference depended on the height of IOP. A significant correlation was found between CCT and the deviation of DCT and ORAcc from corrected GAT (both P < 0.0001). Our study showed a low degree of agreement between IOP measured by ORA, DCT and GAT. DCT and ORAcc over-estimated the IOP compared to GAT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20499265     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-010-9377-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  17 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Authors:  J Y F Ku; H V Danesh-Meyer; J P Craig; G D Gamble; C N J McGhee
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer.

Authors:  Hartmut E Kanngiesser; Christoph Kniestedt; Yves C A Robert
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry.

Authors:  Evelin Schneider; Franz Grehn
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  Maria L Salvetat; Marco Zeppieri; Claudia Tosoni; Paolo Brusini
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand       Date:  2007-05

Review 6.  Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach.

Authors:  M J Doughty; M L Zaman
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.048

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

Review 8.  Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers.

Authors:  M M Whitacre; R Stein
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.048

9.  Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis.

Authors:  Claude Kaufmann; Lucas M Bachmann; Michael A Thiel
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  [The influence of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor on the measurement of intraocular pressure].

Authors:  A Hager; B Schroeder; M Sadeghi; M Grossherr; W Wiegand
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.059

View more
  4 in total

1.  Intraocular pressure measurement by three different tonometers in primary congenital glaucoma.

Authors:  Athar Zareei; Mohammad Reza Razeghinejad; Mohammad Hosein Nowroozzadeh; Yadollah Mehrabi; Mohammad Aghazadeh-Amiri
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

2.  Tonographic Effect of Ocular Response Analyzer in Comparison to Goldmann Applanation Tonometry.

Authors:  Martin Zimmermann; Susanne Pitz; Irene Schmidtmann; Norbert Pfeiffer; Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Intraocular Pressure Based on Dynamic Bidirectional Applanation and Air-puff Tonometry: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Ayse E Bahadir Kilavuzoglu; Cemile B Cosar; Ali Rc Celebi; Ugur E Al Parmak
Journal:  J Curr Glaucoma Pract       Date:  2019 May-Aug

4.  Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with ocular parameters in a large central European cohort: the Gutenberg health study.

Authors:  Esther M Hoffmann; Julia Lamparter; Alireza Mirshahi; Heike Elflein; René Hoehn; Christian Wolfram; Katrin Lorenz; Max Adler; Philipp S Wild; Andreas Schulz; Barbara Mathes; Maria Blettner; Norbert Pfeiffer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.