Comparison of intraocular pressure obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer, Corvis ST and an airpuff tonometer in healthy adults

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110692
Author(s):  
Efthymios Karmiris ◽  
Konstantinos Tsiripidis ◽  
Panos S Gartaganis ◽  
Styliani Totou ◽  
Maria-Giannoula Vasilopoulou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Corvis St ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Bland Altman Method ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Difference

Purpose To assess the agreement among four types of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements: IOP obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer (IOP-GAT),IOP obtained by an air-puff tonometer (Nidek NT-510)(IOP-NCT), the non-corrected IOP obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (IOP-Corvis) and the biomechanically corrected IOP obtained by the Corvis ST (bIOP-Corvis) in healthy patients with a broad spectrum of IOP values. Methods: This prospective, observational study recruited 113 healthy individuals. Each patient underwent IOP evaluation via GAT, Nidek NT-510 and Corvis ST. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).Tonometer intermethod agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The difference between the four IOP measurements was correlated against corneal (CCT) and age with Pearson’s correlation test. Results: IOP-Corvis showed the highest values (16.59  ±  3.08 mmHg),followed by IOP-NCT (16.05  ±  3.43 mmHg), IOP-GAT (15.62 ± 3.08 mmHg) and bIOP-Corvis (15.10 ± 2.67 mmHg).There were statistically significant differences in IOP measurements among all the ANOVA pairwise comparisons except between IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis ( p = 0.07),as well as between IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT ( p = 0.25). Bland Altman analysis revealed a notable bias (all p < 0.05) among IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT,IOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT of 0.51, −0.97, −0.43, −1.49, −0.95, 0.53 mmHg respectively. We observed a strong correlation of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis with CCT and patient age. Conclusion: Compared with GAT and Nidek NT-510, the Corvis-derived IOPs were recorded either the highest as IOP-Corvis or the lowest as bIOP-Corvis. Even if the differences among the tonometers were relatively small, the IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT and GAT were not interchangeable.

scholarly journals A comparison of intraocular pressure values obtained with the Tono-Pachymeter NT530P, iCare® rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Rampersad ◽  
K. P. Mashige ◽  
S. Jhetam
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Correlation And Regression Analysis ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Bland Altman Method ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured with the Tono-Pachymeter NT530P (Tonopachy™) and the iCare® rebound tonometer (iCare®) with those obtained by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). The right eyes of 105 subjects aged 18 to 82 years (mean age = 29.27 ± 14.67 years) were assessed with the three tonometers. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured first using the Tonopachy™ and then IOP was measured by Tonopachy™, iCare® and GAT. The data was analyzed with descriptive statistics, paired  t-test, correlation and regression analysis. The Bland-Altman method of analysis was used to evaluate agreements between the sets of data from the three devices. The CCT values ranged from 440 µm to 606 µm (mean= 518.49 ± 33.01 µm). There was little or no correlation between CCT and IOP for any of the instruments used in this study (r = 0.29 for Tonopachy™, r = 0.22 for iCare®, r = 0.17 for GAT). The mean IOP measured with the Tonopachy™ was 14.31 ± 3.57 mmHg (range 8.7 mmHg to 31 mmHg) and 16.64 ± 4.38 mmHg (range 8 mmHg to 32 mmHg) using the iCare®. The mean IOP measured with the GAT was 14.79 ± 3.09 mmHg (range 8.7 mmHg to 29.7 mmHg). Using the Bland-Altman method, the upper and lower limits of agreement between the Tonopachy™ and GAT, iCare® and GAT, iCare® and Tonopachy™ were 5.1 mmHg and –4.2 mmHg, 8.6 mmHg and –4.9 mmHg, 7.5 mmHg and –2.8 mmHg respectively. In 79.1% of the eyes studied, the mean IOP difference between Tonopachy™ and GAT was less than 3 mmHg and in 20.9% of the eyes, the difference was greater than 3 mmHg. However, mean IOP differences of greater than 3 mmHg were obtained by iCare® in comparison with GAT (40%) and Tonopachy™ (34.3%) respectively. Findings of this study suggest that the Tonopachy™ yielded IOP readings that were consistent with those of GAT values while iCare® yielded higher IOP values compared to both GAT and Tonopachy™. (S Afr Optom 2011 70(3) 109-116)

Icare versus Goldmann in a randomised middle-aged population

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212092138
Author(s):  
Katri Stoor ◽  
Elina Karvonen ◽  
Pasi Ohtonen ◽  
M Johanna Liinamaa ◽  
Ville Saarela
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Screening Study ◽  
The Difference

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the measurements of intraocular pressure by two tonometers, the Icare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer, in a randomised screening study. The influence of refraction and central corneal thickness on the measurements was also evaluated. Methods Intraocular pressure was measured with rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer in 1266 participants; refraction and central corneal thickness were also determined. One randomised eye of each participant was selected for this report’s analysis. A Bland–Altman plot was used to compare the values obtained with the two devices. Results The correlation between rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer was good: the intraclass correlation coefficient (r) between the two methods was 0.735 ( p < 0.001). The mean difference (rebound tonometer–Goldmann applanation tonometer) was 0.11 ± 2.3 mmHg. The difference was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.13, p = 0.09). With increasing central corneal thickness, not only did intraocular pressure values with both devices increase, but the difference between them also increased. Refraction (spherical equivalent) did not influence intraocular pressure or the rebound tonometer–Goldmann applanation tonometer difference. However, high astigmatism (≥2D) exerted an influence on intraocular pressure values taken with Goldmann applanation tonometer. Conclusion Measurements with rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer are relatively uniform although rebound tonometer slightly overestimated intraocular pressure. Both rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer and the difference between these devices were affected by central corneal thickness but not by refraction. Higher astigmatism affected Goldmann applanation tonometer more than rebound tonometer. It is concluded that rebound tonometer is a reliable method for measuring intraocular pressure in a population-based screening study.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the New Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometer for Measuring Intraocular Pressure

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Yuta Sakaue ◽  
Jun Ueda ◽  
Masaaki Seki ◽  
Takayuki Tanaka ◽  
Tetsuya Togano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Pearson’S Correlation ◽  
Pearson’S Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Pearson's Correlation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Pearson's Correlation Coefficient

Purpose. To compare a new digital Goldmann applanation tonometer (dGAT) that measures intraocular pressure (IOP) in 0.1 mmHg increments to a standard Goldmann applanation tonometer (sGAT).Methods. This study included 116 eyes of 60 subjects. A single examiner first measured IOP in triplicate using either sGAT or dGAT, which was randomly chosen. After a 5-minute interval, the next set of three consecutive IOP was measured using the other GAT.Results. The mean IOP measured with sGAT was 16.27 ± 6.68 mmHg and 16.35 ± 6.69 mmHg with dGAT. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.998 (P<0.01). The subjects were divided into three groups based on the mean IOP: IOP < 14 mmHg, 14–20 mmHg, or >20 mmHg. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient within each group was 0.935, 0.972, and 0.997 (P<0.01), respectively. The difference within the three consecutive IOP measurements (maximum–minimum) for dGAT (0.72 ± 0.34 mmHg) was significantly smaller than those with sGAT (0.92 ± 0.42 mmHg,P<0.01). Even in patients with equal IOP (zero left-right difference) with sGAT (n=30), dGAT detected IOP differences between the left and right eyes (0.47 ± 0.31 mmHg).Conclusion. Compared to sGAT, dGAT measurements are highly reproducible and less variable.

scholarly journals Comparative study of intraocular pressure (IP) in Bangladeshi individuals by contact and non contact technique

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 56
Author(s):  
Sayed Abdul Wadud ◽  
Md. Sharfuddin Ahmad ◽  
Muntasir Bin Shahid
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Contact Method ◽  
Tertiary Care Centre ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

<p><strong>Background:</strong> Intraocular pressure (IOP) is one of the most important parameters in the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma. Glaucoma has been established as the second leading cause of blindness. The treatment of glaucoma focuses mainly on lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). The target IOP is often set to a level 20% to 30% of IOP reduction, and consequent large IOP reduction beyond 30% or even 40% in cases of advanced glaucoma The different methods of tonometery are: Goldman Applanation tonometery, Noncontact (air-puff) tonometery, Perkins tonometery, Tonopen tonometery, Transpalpebral tonometery.</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To determine the frequency of accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measured by non-contact (air puff) tonometer compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> This was a non-interventional, cross sectional study conducted at a tertiary care centre of Dhaka, Bangladesh. consecutive subjects attending the BSMMU eye OPD were included in the study. IOP was measured by non-contact (air puff) tonometer and a slit lamp mounted GAT in all the subjects. The study samples were selected by convenience sampling who presented for check-up in the Eye Department of community ophthalmology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka. Bangladesh. Results:A total of 120 eyes in 60 patients were studied. The mean age of the patients was 41.60 year. study population consisted of 24 (40 %) men and 36 (60 %) women. The mean intraocular pressure was 13.52 &amp;13.72 mmHg for GAT, and 16.64 &amp; 17.44 mmHg for Air puff respectively. The range of measurements by GAT was from 10 to 23 mmHg and by Air puff was 12 to 28mmHg. The difference between IOP measured by two instruments were statistically significant (p=0.000).</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Airpuff tonometer is quick, a non-contact method to measure intraocular pressure and is useful for screening purposes and postoperative case but the measurements should be confirmed with Goldmann applanation tonometer for accurate labelling of intraocular pressure.</p>

scholarly journals Comparative Study of Intraocular Pressure Measurements with Airpuff, iCare and Goldmann Applanation Tonometers

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Umair Tariq Mirza ◽  
M. Usman Sadiq ◽  
M. Irfan Sadiq ◽  
Ali Raza ◽  
Waseem Ahmed Khan
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Analytical Study ◽  
P Value ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Department Of Ophthalmology ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Azad Kashmir

Purpose:  To compare the difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Airpuff, iCare and Goldmann Applanation Tonometers (GAT). Study Design:  Comparative analytical study. Place and Duration of Study:  Department of Ophthalmology, Mohi-ud-Din Teaching Hospital, Mirpur Azad Kashmir, from June 2020 to August 2020. Methods:  Twenty-five patients (50 eyes) were included in this study. IOP was measured in each eye firstly by Airpuff tonometery, then by iCare tonometery and lastly by Goldmann applanation tonometer. Three consecutive readings were taken in each eye. If there was a difference of 2 mm Hg or more among the readings, measurement was repeated. Once we got three readings, their average was taken and analyzed. Comparison of IOP readings between these tonometers was done. Results:  Mean IOP was 15.84 ± 2.736 mm Hg with Airpuff Tonometer, 14.48 ± 2.435 mm Hg with iCare Tonopen and 14.74 ± 2.489 mm Hg with Goldman Applanation Tonometer. The difference between the mean Airpuff and Goldman Applanation Tonometer readings was 1.10 mm Hg which was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.083). The difference between the mean Goldman Applanation Tonometer and iCare Tonopen readings was 0.26 mm Hg which is also not statistically significant (p-value = 0.867). But, the difference between the mean iCare Tonopen and Airpuff Tonometer readings was -1.36 mm Hg which was statistically significant (p-value = 0.02). Conclusion:  It is concluded that IOP readings taken by iCare Tonopen and Airpuff Tonometer are comparable to those taken by Goldman Applanation Tonometer and iCare Tonopen underestimates the IOP when compared with Airpuff Tonometer. Key Words:  Airpuff Tonometer, Glaucoma, Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, iCare Tonometer, Intraocular Pressure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document