Literature DB >> 27990366

Comparison of ICare and IOPen vs Goldmann applanation tonometry according to international standards 8612 in glaucoma patients.

Milena Pahlitzsch1, Jeanette Brünner2, Johannes Gonnermann2, Anna-Karina B Maier2, Necip Torun2, Eckart Bertelmann2, Matthias Kj Klamann2.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare IOPen and ICare rebound tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) according to International Standards Organization (ISO) 8612 criteria.
METHODS: Totally 191 eyes (n=107 individuals) were included. Criteria of ISO 8612 were fulfilled: 3 clusters of IOP, measured by GAT, were formed. The GAT results were given as mean±standard deviation.
RESULTS: GAT (19.7±0.5 mm Hg) showed a significant correlation to ICare (19.8±0.5 mm Hg) (r=0.547, P<0.001) and IOPen (19.5±0.5 mm Hg) (r=0.526, P<0.001). According to ISO 8612 criteria in all 3 IOP groups the number of outliers (of the 95% limits of agreement) exceeded 5% for ICare and IOPen vs GAT: No.1 (n=68) 29.4% and 22.1%, No.2 (n=62) 35.5% and 37.1%, No.3 (n=61) 26.2% and 42.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The strict requirements of the ISO 8612 are not fulfilled in a glaucoma collective by ICare and IOPen at present. As long as the Goldmann tonometry is applicable it should be used first of all for reproducible IOP readings. ICare and IOPen tonometry should be considered as an alternative tool, if application of Goldmann tonometry is not possible.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Goldmann applanation tonometry; ICare tonometry; IOPen tonometry; glaucoma; intraocular pressure

Year:  2016        PMID: 27990366      PMCID: PMC5145091          DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2016.11.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2222-3959            Impact factor:   1.779


  30 in total

1.  Validity and limits of the rebound tonometer (ICare®): clinical study.

Authors:  Gian Luca Scuderi; Nikhil Carlo Cascone; Federico Regine; Andrea Perdicchi; Angelica Cerulli; Santi Maria Recupero
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.597

Review 2.  New technologies for measuring intraocular pressure.

Authors:  Julian Garcia-Feijoo; Jose María Martinez-de-la-Casa; Laura Morales-Fernandez; Federico Saenz Frances; Enrique Santos-Bueso; Sofia Garcia-Saenz; Carmen Mendez-Hernandez
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 2.453

3.  Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers.

Authors:  Makoto Nakamura; Urtogtah Darhad; Yasuko Tatsumi; Miyuki Fujioka; Azusa Kusuhara; Hidetaka Maeda; Akira Negi
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.

Authors:  Paolo Brusini; Maria Letizia Salvetat; Marco Zeppieri; Claudia Tosoni; Lucia Parisi
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 5.  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

6.  Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma.

Authors:  Evelien Vandewalle; Sofie Vandenbroeck; Ingeborg Stalmans; Thierry Zeyen
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.597

7.  Comparison of IOPen rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer at different IOP levels.

Authors:  Fereydoun Farrahi; Farideh Sharifipour; Mohammad Malekahmadi; Bahman Cheraghian
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

8.  Measuring intraocular pressure with the Pulsair 3000 and Rebound tonometers in elderly patients without an anesthetic.

Authors:  Antti Kontiola; Päivi Puska
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 9.  Is 24-hour intraocular pressure monitoring necessary in glaucoma?

Authors:  Kaweh Mansouri; Robert N Weinreb; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Semin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.975

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
  5 in total

1.  Critical pathway for primary open angle glaucoma diagnosis.

Authors:  Alejandro R Allocco; Julia A Ponce; Maria J Riera; Mauricio G Magurno
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-06-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  A large multi-ethnic genome-wide association study identifies novel genetic loci for intraocular pressure.

Authors:  Hélène Choquet; Khanh K Thai; Jie Yin; Thomas J Hoffmann; Mark N Kvale; Yambazi Banda; Catherine Schaefer; Neil Risch; K Saidas Nair; Ronald Melles; Eric Jorgenson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 14.919

3.  Comparison of rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Authors:  Goktug Demirci; Sevil Karaman Erdur; Cafer Tanriverdi; Gokhan Gulkilik; Mustafa Ozsutçu
Journal:  Ther Adv Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-03-14

4.  Intraocular pressure measurements using the TONOVET® rebound tonometer: Influence of the probe-cornea distance.

Authors:  Blanche D Rodrigues; Fabiano Montiani-Ferreira; Mariza Bortolini; André T Somma; András M Komáromy; Peterson Triches Dornbusch
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 1.644

5.  Effect of Proparacaine 0.375%-Sodium Fluorescein 0.25% Eye Drop Mixture and Fluorescein Strip on Anterior Segment Parameters.

Authors:  Mustafa Doğan; Mehmet Cem Sabaner; Mehmet Akif Erol
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 1.909

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.