Repeatability and Reproducibility for Intraocular Pressure Measurement by Dynamic Contour, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 666-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sullivan-Mee ◽  
Gretchen Gerhardt ◽  
Kathy D. Halverson ◽  
Clifford Qualls
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Repeatability And Reproducibility

Intraocular pressure measurements in diabetes mellitus

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1432-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Ramm ◽  
Robert Herber ◽  
Eberhard Spoerl ◽  
Lutz E Pillunat ◽  
Naim Terai
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Corvis St

Purpose: To investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus–induced changes on intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST. Methods: Measurements were done using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST in 69 diabetic patients. Biomechanical-corrected intraocular pressure values by Ocular Response Analyzer (IOPcc) and Corvis ST (bIOP) were used. In addition, biometry and tomography were performed and information on diabetes mellitus specific factors was collected. Results were compared to an age-matched group of 68 healthy subjects. Results: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.193) and central corneal thickness (P = 0.184) were slightly increased. Also, IOPcc (P = 0.075) and bIOP (P = 0.542) showed no significant group difference. In both groups, IOPcc was higher than Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.002, P < 0.001), while bIOP was nearly equal to Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.795, P = 0.323). Central corneal thickness showed a tendency to higher values in poorly controlled than in controlled diabetes mellitus (P = 0.059). Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure correlated to central corneal thickness, while IOPcc and bIOP were independent from central corneal thickness in both groups. All intraocular pressure values showed significant associations to corneal biomechanical parameters. Only in diabetes mellitus, bIOP was correlated to Pachy slope (P = 0.023). Conclusion: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure was slightly, but not significantly, increased, which might be caused by a higher central corneal thickness and changes in corneal biomechanical properties. However, intraocular pressure values measured by Ocular Response Analyzer and Corvis ST were not significantly different between diabetes mellitus patients and healthy subjects. The bIOP showed a higher agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry than IOPcc and was independent from central corneal thickness.

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement between Non-Contact and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry among Glaucoma Patients in Ratchaburi Hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (8) ◽  
pp. 819-823
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Outpatient Clinic ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Iop Measurement ◽  
The Mean

Objective: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) values acquired from the non-contact tonometers and a Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. Materials and Methods: The present study included 300 eyes from 150 participants that attended the glaucoma outpatient clinic. The IOP was measured using both non-contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The differences in IOP readings between the two techniques were evaluated. Results: The mean IOP as measured by NCT was 16.26±6.95 mmHg, when that of measured by GAT was 16.11±8.43 mmHg. The mean difference between the two techniques of measurement was 0.147±3.01 mmHg. The values acquired from NCT were slightly higher than those acquired by GAT in 49% of patients, and this difference was more distinct when the IOP as measured by GAT more than 21 mmHg. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant correlation in the measurement of IOP between non-contact and GAT tonometers. NCT is a proper method for mass screenings of IOP even if the IOP measurement by NCT is slightly higher than by GAT. Keywords: Tonometry, Comparison, Glaucoma, Non-contact tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometerv

scholarly journals The Association of Central Corneal Thickness and Intraocular Pressure Measures by Non-Contact Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry among Glaucoma Patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Kyei ◽  
Frank Assiamah ◽  
Michael Agyemang Kwarteng ◽  
Cynthia Pakyennu Gboglu
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Right

BACKGROUND፡ The aim of this study was to determine whether Central Corneal Thickness (CCT) is associated with intraocular pressure measurement (IOP) with a Non-contact tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved two hundred and thirty-two eyes of clinically diagnosed glaucoma patients receiving care at a referral facility. IOP measurements were obtained using both the Non-Contact Tonometer (NCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). The association between age, ethnicity, and CCT, as well as CCT on the measures of NCT and GAT, were analyzed.RESULTS: There were 64(55.2%) males and 52 (44.8%) females and their ages ranged from 18 to 85 years (mean age = 47.72; SD ±15.75 years). There was a weak positive correlation between the CCT and NCT findings in the right eye (r = 0.19, n = 116, p < 0.05) and in the left eye (r = 0.25, n = 116, p < 0.05). However, there was no correlation between CCT and GAT measurements. Age had a significant correlation with CCT while gender and ethnicity had no significant correlation.CONCLUSION: The study found a significant association between CCT and NCT. However, there was no significant association between CCT and GAT. CCT had an association with age but independent of gender and ethnicity since there was no significant relationship between these variables.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document