Comparison of the ICare® rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists

被引:69
作者
Abraham, L. M. [1 ]
Epasinghe, N. C. R. [1 ]
Selva, D. [1 ]
Casson, R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Royal Adelaide Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol & Visual Sci, S Australian Inst Ophthalmol, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
关键词
intraocular pressure; applanation tonometer; rebound tonometer; agreement;
D O I
10.1038/sj.eye.6702669
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose To assess the agreement between ICare(R) rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer in the hands of experienced and inexperienced tonometrists. Patients and methods Two tonometrists, experienced with both Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and ICare(R) Tonometry (ICT) measured intraocular pressure (IOP), in a masked fashion, in 100 patients. In another series of 58 patients, ICT was performed by an inexperienced tonometrist and GAT by an experienced tonometrist. Results In approximately 80% of patients, the difference in IOP between GAT and ICT was <= 2 mmHg in group 1 and <= 3 mmHg in group 2. The 95% limits of agreement were -4.0-4.4mmHg in group 1 and -6.0-5.0 mmHg in group 2. Conclusion ICT compares reasonably with GAT, in both experienced and inexperienced hands. Its ease of use, portability, and sterility make it an attractive tonometer. Its degree of accuracy in inexperienced hands would make it a useful instrument for health care workers with limited ophthalmic experience.
引用
收藏
页码:503 / 506
页数:4
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]   INFLUENCE OF TOPICAL ANESTHESIA ON TONOMETRIC VALUES OF INTRAOCULAR-PRESSURE [J].
BAUDOUIN, C ;
GASTAUD, P .
OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 1994, 208 (06) :309-313
[2]   COMPARING METHODS OF MEASUREMENT - WHY PLOTTING DIFFERENCE AGAINST STANDARD METHOD IS MISLEADING [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1995, 346 (8982) :1085-1087
[3]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[4]   Method for the noninvasive measurement of intraocular pressure in mice [J].
Danias, J ;
Kontiola, AI ;
Filippopoulos, T ;
Mittag, T .
INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2003, 44 (03) :1138-1141
[5]   DYNAMIC TONOMETRY [J].
DEKKING, HM ;
COSTER, HD .
OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 1967, 154 (01) :59-&
[6]   RELIABILITY OF INTRAOCULAR-PRESSURE MEASUREMENT WITH THE GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETER IN EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES [J].
DIELEMANS, I ;
VINGERLING, JR ;
HOFMAN, A ;
GROBBEE, DE ;
DEJONG, PTVM .
GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1994, 232 (03) :141-144
[7]   Comparison of the ICare® rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population [J].
Fernandes, P ;
Díaz-Rey, JA ;
Queirós, A ;
Gonzalez-Meijome, JM ;
Jorge, J .
OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2005, 25 (05) :436-440
[8]   Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness [J].
Iliev, M. E. ;
Goldblum, D. ;
Katsoulis, K. ;
Amstutz, C. ;
Frueh, B. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2006, 90 (07) :833-835
[9]   Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research - Guidelines from the eye care technology forum [J].
Kass, MA .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1996, 103 (01) :183-185
[10]   Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry [J].
Martinez-de-la-Casa, JM ;
Garcia-Feijoo, J ;
Castillo, A ;
Garcia-Sanchez, J .
INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2005, 46 (12) :4578-4580