Literature DB >> 21701395

Repeatability and reproducibility of Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry.

Allen Shawlun Wang1, Luciana M Alencar, Robert N Weinreb, Ali Tafreshi, Sunil Deokule, Gianmarco Vizzeri, Felipe A Medeiros.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and interoperator reproducibility of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in a single population of normal individuals.
METHODS: The study included 52 eyes from 26 normal individuals. One operator measured the intraocular pressure (IOP) with each tonometer 3 times while 2 additional operators each measured the IOP with each tonometer once. Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed by the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement among tonometers was also assessed using Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: The mean age of included participants was 31.5±8.8 years and 15 (58%) were female individuals. In general, both intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility were significantly higher for DCT compared with the other tonometers. Intraoperator DCT (CV=3.7, ICC=0.89), GAT (CV=9.7, ICC=0.79), IOPg (CV=7.0, ICC=0.79), and IOPcc (CV=9.8, ICC=0.57). Interoperator DCT (CV=6.1, ICC=0.73), GAT (CV=9.0, ICC=0.82), and IOPg (CV=10.8, ICC=0.63), IOPcc (CV=11.7, ICC=0.49).
CONCLUSION: Overall, DCT was significantly more repeatable and reproducible than GAT, IOPg and IOPcc. The better reproducibility of the DCT may result in more precise measurements for monitoring IOP changes over time compared to GAT and ORA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 21701395      PMCID: PMC3194063          DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182254ba3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Glaucoma        ISSN: 1057-0829            Impact factor:   2.503


  18 in total

Review 1.  Statistical strategies to assess reliability in ophthalmology.

Authors:  N Patton; T Aslam; G Murray
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2005-12-02       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability.

Authors:  P-A Tonnu; T Ho; K Sharma; E White; C Bunce; D Garway-Heath
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Repeatability of stratus optical coherence tomography measures in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Praveen J Patel; Fred K Chen; Felicia Ikeji; Wen Xing; Catey Bunce; Lyndon Da Cruz; Adnan Tufail
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications.

Authors:  Javier Moreno-Montañés; Miguel J Maldonado; Noelia García; Loreto Mendiluce; Pio J García-Gómez; María Seguí-Gómez
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables.

Authors:  J W Bartlett; C Frost
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 7.299

6.  Measurement error.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-21

7.  The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.

Authors:  A Kotecha; E T White; J M Shewry; D F Garway-Heath
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 8.  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

9.  Reproducibility with the Keeler Pulsair 2000 non-contact tonometer.

Authors:  S A Vernon
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer.

Authors:  Aachal Kotecha; Ahmed Elsheikh; Cynthia R Roberts; Haogang Zhu; David F Garway-Heath
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Tonometers-which one should I use?

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

2.  Comparison of intraocular pressure variability in glaucoma measured by multiple clinicians with those by one clinician.

Authors:  Motofumi Kawai; Naoko Kawai; Seigo Nakabayashi; Reiko Kinouchi; Akitoshi Yoshida
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 2.031

3.  Effects of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) on corneal biomechanical measurements with the Corvis ST tonometer.

Authors:  Andreas Frings; Stephan J Linke; Eva L Bauer; Vasyl Druchkiv; Toam Katz; Johannes Steinberg
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-02-12

4.  Repeatability and reproducibility of applanation resonance tonometry: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Laura Ottobelli; Paolo Fogagnolo; Paolo Frezzotti; Stefano De Cillà; Elena Vallenzasca; Maurizio Digiuni; Ruggiero Paderni; Ilaria Motolese; Simone Alex Bagaglia; Eduardo Motolese; Luca Rossetti
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 2.209

5.  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

6.  Correlation of IOP with Corneal Acoustic Impedance in Porcine Eye Model.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; Yi Zhang; Yang Li; Ruimin Chen; K Kirk Shung; Grace Richter; Qifa Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Intraocular Pressure Measurement with Pneumatonometry and a Tonometer Tip Cover.

Authors:  Tanner J Ferguson; Catherine G Knier; Uttio Roy Chowdhury; Kjerseten J Monson; Michael Greenwood; Russell J Swan; Richard Gorham; John P Berdahl; Michael P Fautsch
Journal:  Ophthalmol Ther       Date:  2020-02-20

8.  Changes in corneal biomechanics in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaoyi Wang; Guihua Xu; Wei Wang; Juanjuan Wang; Lili Chen; Mingguang He; Zilin Chen
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2020-03-22       Impact factor: 4.280

9.  Comparison of three methods of tonometry in normal subjects: Goldmann applanation tonometer, non-contact airpuff tonometer, and Tono-Pen XL.

Authors:  Ihsan Yilmaz; Cigdem Altan; Ebru Demet Aygit; Cengiz Alagoz; Okkes Baz; Sibel Ahmet; Semih Urvasizoglu; Dilek Yasa; Ahmet Demirok
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-06-07

10.  System for Rapid, Precise Modulation of Intraocular Pressure, toward Minimally-Invasive In Vivo Measurement of Intracranial Pressure.

Authors:  Max A Stockslager; Brian C Samuels; R Rand Allingham; Zoe A Klesmith; Stephen A Schwaner; Craig R Forest; C Ross Ethier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.