Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Icare PRO Rebound Tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 Noncontact Tonometer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Healthy Subjects

Güler, Mete; Bilak, Şemsettin; Bi̇lgi̇n, Burak; Şimşek, Ali; Capkin, Musa; Reyhan, Ali Hakim

doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000000132

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…NCT seemed to be influenced the most by CCT (r 2 = 0.164, P < 0.000), followed by iCare pro (r 2 = 0.129, P < 0.000) and GAT (r 2 = 0.103, P < 0.000). In previous studies, Guler et al and Kato et al also reported similar positive correlations between IOP measured by NCT, iCare pro and GAT with CCT [9, 39]. As estimated by a regression equation, every 10 μm increase in CCT resulted in an increase in IOP as 0.6 mmHg with NCT, 0.5 mmHg in iCare pro, and 0.3 mmHg in GAT in normal IOP group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMeasurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) is essential for glaucoma patients. Many factors such as central corneal thickness (CCT) can affect the accuracy of IOP measurement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of IOP measured by non-contact tonometer (NCT), iCare pro rebound tonometer (iCare), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in different IOP group.MethodsThis was a Hospital-based cross-sectional study. Two hundred subjects were enrolled in this study. All subjects underwent IOP measurement using an NCT–iCare–GAT sequence. Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation analysis were performed using SPSS 17.0 software. The influence of CCT on each IOP measurement methods was evaluated by linear regression analysis.ResultsThe mean difference (Δ) of NCT–GAT did not differ from (Δ) iCare–GAT in IOP < 10 and 10–21 mmHg group. However, (Δ) NCT–GAT was significantly higher than (Δ) iCare–GAT in IOP 22–30 and > 30 mmHg group (P < 0.05). Bland–Altman analysis showed significant agreement between the three devices (P < 0.01). IOP measurements of the three methods were significantly correlated with CCT (P < 0.01).ConclusionsICare pro shows a higher agreement with GAT over a wide range of IOP compared with NCT. The consistency between the three tonometers was similar in a low and normal IOP range. However, NCT shows a greater overestimate of IOP in moderate and higher IOP group. The variability of IOP measurement affected by CCT is NCT > iCare pro > GAT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rebound tonometry represents the most recent addition to this field, with results from healthy human adults reported to be in good agreement with those from Goldmann applanation tonometry, 30,31 and those from children being only slightly higher. 32,33 Rebound tonometers specifically designed for animal use, for example, in veterinary practice and research, are also now available.…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

A Comparison of Applanation and Rebound Tonometers in Young Chicks

Ostrin

Wildsoet

2020

Current Eye Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess the validity of and compare applanation and rebound tonometry readings of intraocular pressure in alert normal chicks from ages 3 to 45 days. Methods: Intraocular pressures (IOPs) were measured weekly in awake White Leghorn chicks, from ages 3-45 days (n = 22-30 per age group), with both applanation Tono-Pen and rebound TonoLab tonometers. Three repeated measurements on individual eyes were used to derive variance data for both instruments at each age. Calibration curves were also derived for each instrument and each age, weekly from ages 10-45 days (n = 3-4 per age group), from in situ manometry data collected over IOP settings of 0 to 100 mmHg in 5 mmHg steps in cannulated eyes. Results: The TonoLab showed less within measurement variability, but more variability with age, than the Tono-Pen. The coefficient of variation ranged from 3.8-8.3% for the TonoLab, compared to 11.0-19.7% for the Tono-Pen across all ages. For the youngest, 3 day-old chicks, mean IOPs recorded with the Tono-Pen and TonoLab were not significantly different (17.0 ± 5.6 and 15.2 ± 3.7 mmHg, respectively, P = .27). However, with increasing age, IOP readings significantly increased for the TonoLab (P < .001), whereas Tono-Pen readings did not. Compared to manometry settings, the Tono-Pen tended to underestimate IOPs while the TonoLab overestimated IOPs over the range 20-60 mmHg, saturating thereafter; there were also age-dependent differences for the TonoLab. Conclusions: Both the Tono-Pen and TonoLab gave IOP readings that differed from manometry settings in normal young chicks over some or all of the ages tested. These results reinforce the importance of calibrating clinical tonometers in animal studies involving IOP as a key variable.

show abstract

“…Icare PRO gives a mean IOP closer to that obtained with GAT. Previous reports showed that the mean IOP difference between Icare PRO and GAT was −0.38 mmHg (95% LOA was unclear), 27 −0.22 mmHg (95% LOA was between −2.8 and 2.4 mmHg), 28 0.01±2.16 mmHg (95% LOA was between −4.22 and 4.25 mmHg), 10 0.1 mmHg (95% LOA was between −3.6 and 3.8 mmHg), 29 and 0.43±2.28 mmHg (95% LOA was between −4.04 and 4.90 mmHg). 4 …”

Section: The Characteristics Of Each Device and Iop Valuesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Icare<sup>®</sup> rebound tonometers: review of their characteristics and ease of use

Nakakura¹

2018

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rebound tonometer has a unique mechanism for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) and has become popular worldwide due to its ease of use. The most notable advantages are the lack of an air-puff and need for topical anesthesia, ease of operation and transport, and the ability to use it with children. Four rebound tonometers (Icare® TA01i, Icare PRO, Icare HOME, and Icare ic100) are currently available for clinical examination. It is important to understand the characteristics of each tonometer and select the most appropriate one because the IOP values and the purpose of measurement are different. In this review, with the goal of improving the understanding of a range of tonometers, the issues with each device are discussed.

show abstract

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Icare PRO Rebound Tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 Noncontact Tonometer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Healthy Subjects

Abstract: The IOP readings with the new Icare PRO RT showed good correlation with those obtained by GAT. Tomey FT-1000 NCT underestimated the IOP compared with GAT.

Cited by 23 publications

References 30 publications

Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

A Comparison of Applanation and Rebound Tonometers in Young Chicks

Icare<sup>®</sup> rebound tonometers: review of their characteristics and ease of use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Icare PRO Rebound Tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 Noncontact Tonometer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Healthy Subjects

Abstract: The IOP readings with the new Icare PRO RT showed good correlation with those obtained by GAT. Tomey FT-1000 NCT underestimated the IOP compared with GAT.

Cited by 23 publications

References 30 publications

Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

A Comparison of Applanation and Rebound Tonometers in Young Chicks

Icare<sup>&reg;</sup> rebound tonometers: review of their characteristics and ease of use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Icare<sup>®</sup> rebound tonometers: review of their characteristics and ease of use