Literature DB >> 32672576

Reproducibility of 5 Methods of Ocular Tonometry.

Anne E Kutzscher1, Rajesh S Kumar2, B Ramgopal2, Mahalakshmi V Rackenchath2, Sriharsha Nagaraj2, Caitlin A Moe3, Dionna M Fry3, Robert L Stamper4, Jeremy D Keenan5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT; Haag-Streit, Bern, Switzerland) and several portable tonometers that could be used for glaucoma screening programs.
DESIGN: Evaluation of a diagnostic test. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-one eyes of 168 participants seeking treatment at the glaucoma clinic of a tertiary eye hospital in India.
METHODS: Participants underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement with GAT and 4 index tests: the Icare TA01i rebound tonometer (Icare USA, Raleigh, NC), a noncontact tonometer (NCT; Topcon CT-80; Topcon; Tokyo, Japan), a pneumatonometer (Model 30; Reichert Technologies; Depew, NY), and the Tono-Pen AVIA (Reichert Technologies). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of reproducibility of IOP measurements between each index test and GAT, including the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement.
RESULTS: The Icare showed the greatest agreement with GAT (ICC, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.74), followed by the NCT (ICC, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), the Tono-Pen (ICC, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.59), and the pneumatonometer (ICC, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.44). The pneumatonometer and Tono-Pen tended to overestimate IOP relative to GAT, with a mean difference of 3.4 mmHg (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -7.3 to 14.1 mmHg) for the pneumatonometer and 3.2 mmHg (95% LOA, -6.1 to 12.6 mmHg) for the Tono-Pen. In contrast, measurements from the Icare and NCT were on average within 1 point of those for GAT (mean difference, -0.4 mmHg [95% LOA, -8.4 to 7.6 mmHg] and -0.5 mmHg [95% LOA, -8.7 to 7.6 mmHg], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The Icare and NCT both demonstrated good agreement with GAT across a wide range of IOPs and could be considered for glaucoma screening programs.
Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 32672576     DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2019.07.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma        ISSN: 2589-4196


  4 in total

1.  Using Deep Learning to Automate Goldmann Applanation Tonometry Readings.

Authors:  Ted Spaide; Yue Wu; Ryan T Yanagihara; Shu Feng; Omar Ghabra; Jonathan S Yi; Philip P Chen; Francy Moses; Aaron Y Lee; Joanne C Wen
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 2.  How should we measure intraocular pressure in the era of coronavirus disease 2019? Balancing infectious risk, cleaning requirements, and accuracy.

Authors:  Christine A Petersen; Andrew Chen; Philip P Chen
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.761

3.  Influence of Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology Tonometry on Intraocular Pressure.

Authors:  Davide Borroni; Kunal Ajit Gadhvi; Rozaliya Hristova; Keri McLean; Carlos Rocha de Lossada; Vito Romano; Stephen Kaye
Journal:  Ophthalmol Sci       Date:  2021-01-13

4.  Intraocular Pressure Changes during Hemodiafiltration with Two different Concentrations of Sodium in the Dialysate.

Authors:  Claudia Lerma; Nadia Saavedra-Fuentes; Jasbeth Ledesma-Gil; Martín Calderón-Juárez; Héctor Pérez-Grovas; Salvador López-Gil
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.