scholarly journals A comparison of postural and diurnal variations in intraocular pressure using the iCare rebound tonometer and Perkins applanation tonometer in admitted adults in Kenya

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy G. Chikasirimobi ◽  
Mercy Ndinyo ◽  
Maxine N. Ondieki ◽  
Isaac Miti ◽  
Ndidi J. Ejiochi-Iyoke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Diurnal Variations ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Icare Rebound Tonometer

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer compared to the Perkins applanation tonometer in assessing intraocular pressure in rural patients

Diagnosis ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yifan Li ◽  
Christopher R. Carpenter ◽  
Kathryn Nicholson ◽  
William Ken Milne
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Icare Rebound Tonometer

AbstractVision health is recognized as a critical unmet need in North America. The ocular morbidity associated with glaucoma results from increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and early detection is crucial for the management of glaucoma. Our objective was to find a diagnostically accurate screening tool for intraocular hypertension that can be used in rural communities. We sought to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer against the gold standard Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT) in measuring IOP.Patients from two rural communities in Ontario, Canada visiting their optometrists for routine appointments had their IOP measured by a non-contact tonometer (NCT), an iCare rebound tonometer, and a Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT). Values of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for a positive and negative result were calculated for the iCare and the NCT.Complete data was collected from 209 patients. Overall, the iCare tonometer had high levels of validity, as compared to the gold standard PAT. The iCare tonometer displayed excellent sensitivity of 98.3% (90–99%, 95% CI) and excellent negative likelihood ratio of 0.024 (0.0088–0.066, 95% CI) which is useful for ruling out intraocular hypertension.The iCare tonometer is a reasonably valid tool for detecting elevated IOP. Its ease of use, simplicity, and accessibility makes it a good screening tool to improve eye health in rural areas.

scholarly journals Comparison of IOP Measurement by Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, ICare Rebound Tonometer, and Tono-Pen in Keratoconus Patients after MyoRing Implantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Rateb ◽  
Mahmoud Abdel-Radi ◽  
Zeiad Eldaly ◽  
Mohamed Nagy Elmohamady ◽  
Asaad Noor El Din
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Altman Analysis ◽  
Bland Altman Analysis ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Icare Rebound Tonometer

Purpose. To evaluate the different IOP readings by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), ICare rebound tonometer, and Tono-Pen in keratoconus patients after MyoRing implantation. To assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest corneal location (TCL) on IOP measurements by different tonometers. Setting. Prospective observational study was conducted in two private centers in Egypt from February 2015 to November 2016. Methods. Seventeen eyes of 10 patients suffering from keratoconus and who underwent MyoRing implantation were recruited. All subjects underwent GAT, ICare, and Tono-Pen IOP measurements in random order. Central corneal thickness and thinnest corneal location were assessed by Pentacam. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by T-test. Correlation between each pair of devices was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess intertonometer agreement. Results. Seventeen eyes (10 patients) were evaluated. The mean IOP reading was 13.9 ± 3.68, 12.41 ± 2.87, and 14.29 ± 1.31 mmHg in GAT, ICare, and Tono-Pen group, respectively. There was a significant difference between IOP readings by GAT/ICare and Tono-Pen/ICare (p value: 0.032 and 0.002, respectively) with no significant difference between GAT/Tono-Pen (p value: 0.554). Mean difference in IOP measurements between GAT/ICare was 1.49 ± 2.61 mmHg, Tono-Pen/ICare was 1.89 ± 2.15 mmHg, and GAT/Tono-Pen was −0.39 ± 2.59 mmHg. There was no significant correlation between the difference in IOP readings among any pair of devices and CCC or TCL. The Bland–Altman analysis showed a reasonable agreement between any pair of tonometers.

Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunsuke Nakakura ◽  
Etsuko Mori ◽  
Yuki Fujio ◽  
Yasuko Fujisawa ◽  
Kanae Matsuya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer

Home assessment of diurnal intraocular pressure in healthy children using the Icare rebound tonometer

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Chuan Hsiao ◽  
Jacqueline R. Dzau ◽  
Meghan S. Flemmons ◽  
Sanjay Asrani ◽  
Sarah Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Healthy Children ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Icare Rebound Tonometer

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document