AIM: To compare the accuracy of IOPen rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in individuals with low, normal and high intraocular pressure (IOP) and to evaluate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of 159 participants. IOP of one eye of each subject was measured consecutively with IOPen and GAT. Then CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter. Based on GAT IOP readings, participants were divided into low, normal and high IOP groups. Correlation between tonometers and CCT was calculated by spearman's correlation coefficient. Agreement between tonometers was evaluated using Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Non-significant underestimation of IOP by IOPen was observed in low IOP group (Mean difference: 0.20mmHg; P=0.454) and also in normal IOP group (Mean difference: 0.56mmHg; P=0.065). However, IOPen significantly overestimated IOP in high IOP group (Mean difference: 1.06mmHg; P=0.038). The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) width between IOPen and GAT IOPs were 7.84, 8.57 and 14.27mmHg in low, normal and high IOP groups, respectively. Low IOP group had thinner corneas compared to high IOP group (P=0.034). IOP measurements taken by IOPen were not influenced by CCT (P=0.099) while poor correlation between CCT and GAT was found (R=0.17, P=0.032). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, cutoff value of 18.75mmHg was determined for IOPen with sensitivity of 98.1 and specificity of 97.2%. CONCLUSION: Accuracy of IOPen is comparable to GAT in patients with low or normal IOP but IOPen overestimates IOP at high IOP levels. CCT does not affect IOP readings with IOPen.
AIM: To compare the accuracy of IOPen rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in individuals with low, normal and high intraocular pressure (IOP) and to evaluate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of 159 participants. IOP of one eye of each subject was measured consecutively with IOPen and GAT. Then CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter. Based on GAT IOP readings, participants were divided into low, normal and high IOP groups. Correlation between tonometers and CCT was calculated by spearman's correlation coefficient. Agreement between tonometers was evaluated using Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Non-significant underestimation of IOP by IOPen was observed in low IOP group (Mean difference: 0.20mmHg; P=0.454) and also in normal IOP group (Mean difference: 0.56mmHg; P=0.065). However, IOPen significantly overestimated IOP in high IOP group (Mean difference: 1.06mmHg; P=0.038). The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) width between IOPen and GAT IOPs were 7.84, 8.57 and 14.27mmHg in low, normal and high IOP groups, respectively. Low IOP group had thinner corneas compared to high IOP group (P=0.034). IOP measurements taken by IOPen were not influenced by CCT (P=0.099) while poor correlation between CCT and GAT was found (R=0.17, P=0.032). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, cutoff value of 18.75mmHg was determined for IOPen with sensitivity of 98.1 and specificity of 97.2%. CONCLUSION: Accuracy of IOPen is comparable to GAT in patients with low or normal IOP but IOPen overestimates IOP at high IOP levels. CCT does not affect IOP readings with IOPen.
Authors: Jose M Martinez-de-la-Casa; Julian Garcia-Feijoo; Eva Vico; Ana Fernandez-Vidal; Jose M Benitez del Castillo; Mohamed Wasfi; J Garcia-Sanchez Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 12.079