Literature DB >> 20697730

Reproducibility of ocular response analyzer measurements and their correlation with central corneal thickness.

Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik1, Fatmire Berisha, Shakhsanam Aliyeva, Norbert Pfeiffer, Esther M Hoffmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the inter- and intraobserver variability of ocular response analyzer (ORA) measurements, namely corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), corneal resistance factor (CRF) and corneal hysteresis (CH).
METHODS: One randomly chosen eye of 46 healthy volunteers was included in this study. Three clinical observers performed three consecutive measurements using ORA, with an interval of 1-2 minutes between measurements. In all subjects, central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured. The inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for IOPcc, CRF and CH was assessed by ANOVA-based intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV).
RESULTS: The mean ICC for interobserver reproducibility was 0.94 for IOPcc, 0.90 for CRF, and 0.86 for CH. The corresponding CV values were 12.8%, 10.3%, and 13.6% respectively. The intraobserver ICC values for IOPcc were 0.86 for the first examiner, 0.84 for the second, and 0.89 for the third. CV was 11.7%, 11.9%, and 11.0% respectively. For CRF, the intraobserver ICC values were 0.69, 0.81, and 0.63, and corresponding CV values were 9.6%, 8.1, and 10.8%. The intraobserver ICC for CH was 0.66 for the first observer, 0.71 for the second, and 0.61 for the third examiner. The respective CV values were 12.7%, 11.8%, and 13.9%. There was a significant correlation between CCT and CRF (Rsq = 0.13, p = 0.02). The correlations of CCT with IOPcc and CH were not significant (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver reproducibility of ORA measurements was almost perfect for IOPcc, CRF, and CH. The intraobserver short-term reproducibility was almost perfect for IOPcc and substantial for CRF and CH, for all observers. The significant correlation between CCT and CRF, and no association between IOPcc and CCT, are in agreement with previous studies. There was no significant correlation between CH and CCT in our study. This device might be useful in glaucoma diagnosis and management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20697730     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-010-1471-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  27 in total

1.  Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer.

Authors:  David A Luce
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis.

Authors:  Jun Liu; Cynthia J Roberts
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  Diurnal variation of corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure in normal subjects.

Authors:  Banu Oncel; Umut Asli Dinc; Ebru Gorgun; Belkis Ilgaz Yalvaç
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.597

4.  Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects.

Authors:  Lorenz Barleon; Esther M Hoffmann; Manfred Berres; Norbert Pfeiffer; Franz H Grus
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  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

7.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma.

Authors:  Mae O Gordon; Julia A Beiser; James D Brandt; Dale K Heuer; Eve J Higginbotham; Chris A Johnson; John L Keltner; J Philip Miller; Richard K Parrish; M Roy Wilson; Michael A Kass
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-06

8.  Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.

Authors:  Brian A Francis; Amy Hsieh; Mei-Ying Lai; Vikas Chopra; Fernando Pena; Stanley Azen; Rohit Varma
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 9.  Incorporating corneal pachymetry into the management of glaucoma.

Authors:  Michele Iester; Maurizio Mete; Michele Figus; Paolo Frezzotti
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.351

10.  Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements.

Authors:  Andreas G Boehm; Anja Weber; Lutz E Pillunat; Rainer Koch; Eberhard Spoerl
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-03-03       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor after corneal cross-linking for keratoconus.

Authors:  Maria Gkika; Georgios Labiris; Athanassios Giarmoukakis; Anna Koutsogianni; Vassilios Kozobolis
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Which tonometry in eyes with keratoconus?

Authors:  H Altinkaynak; C Kocasarac; H Dundar; N Sayin; N Kara; E Bozkurt; N Duru
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-12-04       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Corneal biomechanics in asymmetrical normal-tension glaucoma.

Authors:  Hazem Helmy; Mahmoud Leila; Ahmed Atef Zaki
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-03-18

4.  A Comparison of the Corrected Intraocular Pressure Obtained by the Corvis ST and Reichert 7CR Tonometers in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Yoshitaka Nakao; Yoshiaki Kiuchi; Satoshi Okimoto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  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

6.  Polygenic Risk Score Is Associated With Intraocular Pressure and Improves Glaucoma Prediction in the UK Biobank Cohort.

Authors:  X Raymond Gao; Hua Huang; Heejin Kim
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 3.283

Review 7.  Advances in Biomechanical Parameters for Screening of Refractive Surgery Candidates: A Review of the Literature, Part III.

Authors:  Majid Moshirfar; Mahsaw N Motlagh; Michael S Murri; Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes
Journal:  Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol       Date:  2019

8.  Goldmann applanation tonometry compared with corneal-compensated intraocular pressure in the evaluation of primary open-angle Glaucoma.

Authors:  Joshua R Ehrlich; Nathan M Radcliffe; Mitsugu Shimmyo
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 2.209

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.