Intraocular Pressure Measurement Precision with the Goldmann Applanation, Dynamic Contour, and Ocular Response Analyzer Tonometers

Kotecha, Aachal; White, Edward T.; Schlottmann, Patricio G.; Garway-Heath, David F.

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.020

Cited by 114 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies compared the reproducibility and reliability of IOP measurements obtained with NCT, DCT, and GAT. [21][22][23][24] In most of these studies, similar reproducibility and reliability were demonstrated with all three devices. In this study, however, the results indicated better reproducibility of measurements for NCT, DCT, and GAT without a contact lens than with one.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement

Fırat

Çankaya

Doğanay

et al. 2011

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the influence of silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). Methods We included in the study 40 eyes of 40 patients who did not have any ocular or systemic diseases or contraindications to contact lens use. We measured and recorded the IOP values of each patient using NCT without and with contact lenses (groups 1 and 2, respectively), using DCT without and with contact lenses (groups 3 and 4, respectively), and using GAT without contact lenses (group 5). Results The mean IOP value of group 1 was 14.55±2.95 mm Hg and 13.92±2.58 mm Hg in group 2. We detected no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (P ¼ 0.053). The mean IOP values for group 3 and group 4 were 16.26 ± 2.33 mm Hg and 15.19 ± 2.40 mm Hg, respectively. We detected a statistically significant difference between groups 3 and 4 (P ¼ 0.005).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement

Fırat

Çankaya

Doğanay

et al. 2011

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the literature, the GAT CR is 1.6-2.9, [17][18][19] which is very close. Table 1 compares various parameters for Tonosafe test-retest reliability and GAT test-retest reliability, [20][21][22] showing similar variability between the two devices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

Reliability of tonosafe disposable tonometer prisms: clinical implications from the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System Quality Assurance Study

Thomas

Daly

Cakiner-Egilmez

et al. 2011

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Given the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System's recent introduction of single-use Tonosafe disposable tonometer prisms as an alternative to Goldmann applanation tonometers (GATs), this study had two aims: to conduct a large-scale quality assurance trial to assess the reliability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of the Tonosafe disposable tonometer compared with GAT, particularly at extremes of pressure; to evaluate the suitability of Tonosafe disposable tonometer prisms as an acceptable substitute for GATs and for clinic-wide implementation in an academic tertiary referral setting. Methods Ophthalmology resident physicians measured the IOPs of patients in general and specialty eye clinics with the Tonosafe disposable tonometer and GAT. Tonosafe test-retest reliability data were also collected. A retrospective review of patient charts and data analysis were performed to determine the reliability of measurements. Results The IOPs of 652 eyes (326 patients) were measured with both GAT and Tonosafe, with a range of 3-34 mm Hg. Linear regression analysis showed R ¼ 0.93, slope ¼ 0.91, both of which supported the proposed hypothesis, and the y-intercept ¼ À1.05 was significantly different from the hypothesized value. The Tonosafe test-retest repeatability (40 eyes of 40 patients), r ¼ 0.977, was very high, which was further supported by linear regression slope ¼ 0.993, y-intercept ¼ 0.118, and a Tonosafe repeatability coefficient of 2.06, similar to GAT repeatability. Conclusions The IOP measurements by Tonosafe disposable prisms correlated closely with Goldmann measurements, with similar repeated measurement variability to GAT. This suggests that the Tonosafe is an acceptable substitute for GAT to measure IOP in ophthalmology clinic settings.

show abstract

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What was the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement in their measurements? Most importantly, the order in which RT and GAT were performed is not mentioned, and it is not described whether or not the examiner measured IOP with GAT once or if a repeated measurement was made and a mean calculated, as is preferred by several authors [2,3].Rebound tomometry (RT) has been found to overestimate IOP compared to GAT when RT is used first but not when used immediately after GAT [4]. This difference may have significant implications in the study by Sinha et al: if RT was consistently used after repeated GAT measurements, then this could account for, at least in part, the large limits of agreement found between the two methods in the higher range of intraocular pressures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

IOP measurement: importance of methodology

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We read with interest the article by Sinha et al. regarding IOP agreement between I-care TA01 rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with and without glaucoma [1]. The authors conclude that the two methods cannot be used interchangeably due to large limits of agreement.There is, however, a significant point to make regarding methodology in this study. The authors do not describe exactly how IOP measurements were made: Did both independent masked and experienced ophthalmologists measure IOP with both instruments? What was the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement in their measurements? Most importantly, the order in which RT and GAT were performed is not mentioned, and it is not described whether or not the examiner measured IOP with GAT once or if a repeated measurement was made and a mean calculated, as is preferred by several authors [2,3].Rebound tomometry (RT) has been found to overestimate IOP compared to GAT when RT is used first but not when used immediately after GAT [4]. This difference may have significant implications in the study by Sinha et al.: if RT was consistently used after repeated GAT measurements, then this could account for, at least in part, the large limits of agreement found between the two methods in the higher range of intraocular pressures.

show abstract

Intraocular Pressure Measurement Precision with the Goldmann Applanation, Dynamic Contour, and Ocular Response Analyzer Tonometers

Cited by 114 publications

References 24 publications

The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement

The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement

Reliability of tonosafe disposable tonometer prisms: clinical implications from the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System Quality Assurance Study

IOP measurement: importance of methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About