2009European Journal of OphthalmologyRequires access

Comparison of ICare, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Ocular Response Analyzer with Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Patients with Glaucoma

Evelien Vandewalle, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg Stalmans, Thierry Zeyen

Open publisher page 45 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken by ICare, Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ocular response analyzer (ORA) with those taken by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). We sought to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements and to compare patients' preferences for the four tonometers. METHODS: In this prospective study, 93 eyes from 93 patients were examined. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups to vary the order in which the tonometers were applied. CCT was measured with an ultrasound pachymeter. RESULTS: The average CCT was 558+/-47.4 microm. The mean +/- standard deviation IOP for GAT, ICare, DCT, and ORA (Goldmann-correlated IOP) (ORA(GC)) were 15.1+/-4.8, 15.7+/-5.7, 18.2+/-5.1, and 18.3+/-6.6 mmHg, respectively. There was no significant difference between the mean IOP obtained with GAT and ICare (p=0.14). There was also no difference in IOP levels between the mean IOP obtained with DCT and ORA (p=0.26). There was no correlation between IOP measurements and CCT for the 4 instruments. Bland-Altman graphs showed disagreement between the measurements taken by GAT and the other instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments (p=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: IOP readings from ICare were consistent with those from GAT, whereas DCT readings correspond well to ORA(GC) measurements. DCT and ORA readings both overestimated the GAT readings. There was no correlation between the IOP measurements and the CCT for the 4 instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken by ICare, Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ocular response analyzer (ORA) with those taken by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). We sought to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements and to compare patients' preferences for the four tonometers. METHODS: In this prospective study, 93 eyes from 93 patients were examined. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups to vary the order in which the tonometers were applied. CCT was measured with an ultrasound pachymeter. RESULTS: The average CCT was 558+/-47.4 microm. The mean +/- standard deviation IOP for GAT, ICare, DCT, and ORA (Goldmann-correlated IOP) (ORA(GC)) were 15.1+/-4.8, 15.7+/-5.7, 18.2+/-5.1, and 18.3+/-6.6 mmHg, respectively. There was no significant difference between the mean IOP obtained with GAT and ICare (p=0.14). There was also no difference in IOP levels between the mean IOP obtained with DCT and ORA (p=0.26). There was no correlation between IOP measurements and CCT for the 4 instruments. Bland-Altman graphs showed disagreement between the measurements taken by GAT and the other instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments (p=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: IOP readings from ICare were consistent with those from GAT, whereas DCT readings correspond well to ORA(GC) measurements. DCT and ORA readings both overestimated the GAT readings. There was no correlation between the IOP measurements and the CCT for the 4 instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 45 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken by ICare, Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ocular response analyzer (ORA) with those taken by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). We sought to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements and to compare patients' preferences for the four tonometers. METHODS: In this prospective study, 93 eyes from 93 patients were examined. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups to vary the order in which the tonometers were applied. CCT was measured with an ultrasound pachymeter. RESULTS: The average CCT was 558+/-47.4 microm. The mean +/- standard deviation IOP for GAT, ICare, DCT, and ORA (Goldmann-correlated IOP) (ORA(GC)) were 15.1+/-4.8, 15.7+/-5.7, 18.2+/-5.1, and 18.3+/-6.6 mmHg, respectively. There was no significant difference between the mean IOP obtained with GAT and ICare (p=0.14). There was also no difference in IOP levels between the mean IOP obtained with DCT and ORA (p=0.26). There was no correlation between IOP measurements and CCT for the 4 instruments. Bland-Altman graphs showed disagreement between the measurements taken by GAT and the other instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments (p=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: IOP readings from ICare were consistent with those from GAT, whereas DCT readings correspond well to ORA(GC) measurements. DCT and ORA readings both overestimated the GAT readings. There was no correlation between the IOP measurements and the CCT for the 4 instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments.

Key concepts: Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, Medicine, Ophthalmology, Intraocular pressure, Glaucoma, Significant difference, Mean difference, Optometry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of ICare, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Ocular Response Analyzer with Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Patients with Glaucoma — Research Paper | ScholarLens