Clinical performance of the Reichert AT550: a new non-contact tonometer

The aim of the present study was to assess the level of accuracy for measurements of intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained with a new non-contact tonometer (NCT) the Reichert AT550. Measurements were compared against those obtained with the Reichert Xpert Plus, Goldmann applanation tonometer and Perkins tonometer. Thirty-five university students were assessed with the four tonometers in a randomised order, with non-contact tonometry performed first. Each of the four measurement devices had its own trained clinical observer. Plots of differences of IOP as a function of the mean for each pair of instruments were obtained. No statistically significant differences were found when comparing the AT550 NCT with contact applanation tonometry (AT) (p> 0.05), displaying the closest level of agreement (as represented by the lowest mean difference and the narrowest confidence interval) with the Goldmann tonometer (limits of agreement, 0.12+/-2.17). In conclusion, readings of IOP with the AT550 NCT are clinically comparable with those obtained with Goldmann tonometry in a population with IOP within the normal range.     

LASIK前后眼压测量方法选择

目的 比较四种常用眼压计在近视准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(Laserin situ eratomileusis,LASIK)前后的应用,探讨LASIK手术前后眼压测量方式的选择,以做到术前高眼压患者筛查及术后患者青光眼的早期发现.方法 对71例接受LASIK手术近视眼患者按等效球镜分为三组,分别在术前和术后1个月和3个月采用Schiotz眼压计(Schiotztonometer,ST)、Goldmann眼压计(Goldmann applanationtonometry,GAT)、非接触眼压计(non-contacttonometer,NCT)和Tono-Pen眼压计(TP)测量眼压,同时记录手术前后角膜中央厚度.结果 各屈光度组间同时间点相同眼压计测量值差异无统计学意义,术前除GAT、TP外其他眼压计差异有统计学意义,术后各眼压计测量值均降低,TP受角膜变化影响较小,GAT及NCT受影响明显,三者均与术前GAT值相关.ST不受角膜变化影响但其测量值明显偏高且术后与术前GAT无相关关系.结论 术前采用TP或GAT均可,术后应用TP,而NCT可作为术前筛查辅助手段.ST的应用仍有待探讨.     

传导性角膜成形术后眼内压的变化

目的:探讨传导性角膜成形术(CK)对眼压测量可能影响。方法:在术前和术后第1wk,第4wk,分别用非接触式眼压计(NCT)、Goldmann眼压计(GAT)和Schiotz眼压计测量接受CK治疗的20例36眼的眼压,所得结果采用SPSS11.5软件进行统计分析。结果:和术前比较,CK术后NCT、GAT以及Schiotz眼压计测量值显著降低。眼压变化和年龄、性别、角膜曲率以及拟矫正屈光度无关。结论:CK术后压平式眼压计测量眼压值偏低。     

传导性角膜成形术后眼内压的变化

目的讨探传导性角膜成形术(conductive kerato-plasty,CK)对眼压测量的可能影响。方法在术前和术后第1周、第4周、第12周,分别用非接触式眼压计(non-contacttonometer,NCT)和Goldmann眼压计(goldmann applanationtonometer,GAT)测量接受CK治疗的20例36眼的眼压,所得结果采用SPSS 11.0软件进行统计分析。结果和术前比较,CK术后NCT、GAT以及Schiotz眼压计测量值显著降低。眼压变化与年龄、性别、角膜曲率及拟矫正屈光度无关。DCT则无显著性差异。结论CK术后压平式眼压计测量眼压值偏低。为避免CK术后青光眼的误诊,不能按传统的正常眼压值衡量术后结果。     

Clinical evaluation of the Non-Contact Tonometer Mark II

The purpose of this investigation was to test the reliability of the American Optical Non-Contact Tonometer Mark II (NCT II) using the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) as the validating instrument. The sample contained 102 consecutive patients from our University Eye Clinic, of whom one-half had 4 NCT II measurements first, followed by 4 GAT measurements; the other one-half had 4 GAT measurements first, followed by 4 NCT II measurements. No significant change in intraocular pressure (IOP) was noted over the measurement sequence with either instrument. There was no significant difference between paired NCT II and GAT readings when the NCT II was used first; however, a highly significant difference between paired readings was obtained when the GAT was used first, indicating that the GAT measurement produced a delayed reduction in the IOP. This effect did not occur with the NCT II. Although the NCT II is shown to have a good overall reliability when compared to the GAT in both protocols, the agreement between any two tonometers may be influenced greatly by the very process of taking a measurement and by the dynamic nature of the IOP.     

Agreement between two Goldmann type applanation tonometers

The aim of the study was to assess agreement between two commercially available applanation tonometers for the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP). Forty subjects underwent IOP measurement on two accurately calibrated Goldmann type applanation tonometers (Zeiss AT 030 (GATZ) and Inami L-5110(GATI)). The order of examination was randomized and observers were masked to the IOP recorded. The mean of two consecutive readings, from a randomly selected eye for each subject, was used for analysis. Agreement was assessed using the Altman and Bland plot. The mean (SD) IOP readings on GATZ was 15.32 (+/-6.80) mm Hg and on GATI was 13.52 (+/-5.65) mm Hg (p< 0.001, 95% CI of the difference: -2.48 to -1.11). The 95% limits of agreement on the Altman and Bland plot were:-2.47 to 6.16 mm Hg). There was significant inter-instrument variability between the two accurately calibrated Goldmann type applanation tonometers studied.     

Influence of keratometric readings on comparative intraocular pressure measurements with Goldmann, Tono-Pen, and noncontact tonometers

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of keratometric measurements on the concordance of intraocular pressure (IOP) readings with three applanation tonometers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The IOPs of 404 eyes of 202 patients from a general eye clinic were measured by Goldmann, Tono-Pen XL, and noncontact Nidek NT 2000 tonometers. Differences in the IOP measurements between Goldmann and the other two tonometers (deltaIOPG-TP and deltaIOPG-NCT) were analyzed in the overall group and within three subgroups based on keratometry measures: flatter, intermediate, and steeper corneas (quartiles as cut-off points). Regression analysis of deltaIOP and keratometry measures was also performed. Right and left eyes were analyzed separately. RESULTS: The IOP readings taken with the Goldmann tonometer were significantly higher than those taken with either of the other two tonometers within the overall study population. The deltaIOP within the three keratometric subgroups was not statistically significant except for deltaIOPG-TP in the right eyes. Regression analysis showed that keratometry and deltaIOPG-TP and deltaIOPG-NCT had a significant but very weak coefficient of correlation in the right eye, but not in the left. CONCLUSION: Corneal curvature within the normal range does not have a clinically significant influence on the concordance of IOP readings obtained with Goldmann and Tono-Pen or noncontact tonometers.     

The Proview phosphene tonometer fails to measure ocular pressure accurately in clinical practice

PURPOSE: To evaluate the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor as a medical instrument and as a technique for enabling a patient to obtain an accurate measure of his or her intraocular pressure (IOP). DESIGN: An experimental laboratory evaluation and an independent prospective clinical study to test the reproducibility and accuracy of the Proview technique relative to Goldmann applanation tonometry. PARTICIPANTS: For the laboratory study, we analyzed 3 tonometers, each packaged as a Proview Eye Pressure Monitor by Bausch & Lomb. In the independent prospective experimental study, 137 subjects participated, consisting of healthy volunteers and glaucoma patients. METHODS: For laboratory testing, we held each tonometer with a micrometer to assure controlled positioning and pressed its sensing tip against a force meter that produced a calibrated, digital force reading. For clinical testing, we taught subjects (n = 137) to use the Proview technique in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Each subject obtained 5 measurements with each of the 5 different Proview devices. A clinician measured the IOP using Goldmann applanation tonometry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured the absolute value, linearity, and repeatability of the force meter readings on the tonometers during the instrument laboratory evaluation. The accuracy was evaluated by comparing the Proview measurements to the Goldmann applanation measurements. Reproducibility of clinical Proview measurements was also measured. All measurements were in mmHg during the clinical evaluation. RESULTS: Laboratory: There was a linear relationship between the pressures read by the Proview tonometers and known forces. The Proview tonometers read the maximum pressure applied. Clinical: The Proview technique is simple to use because it was comfortable and reproducible, with an average variance of the measurements by the same patient of 3.4 mmHg(2). Other variables besides IOP seem to affect the Proview pressure measurements, as seen in the large scatter in our data, measured by our correlation coefficient of r = 0.41. The sensitivity of the Proview technique to detect patients with high IOP (which we defined as a Goldmann pressure of >/=22 mmHg) is low; the Proview pressure identified only 18% (4/22) of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Proview instrument and technique were reproducible. However, the Proview tonometer seems not to be reliable as an indicator of IOP. The sensitivity for detecting high IOP was low in this cohort, and the agreement with Goldmann applanation was poor for some individuals. This brings into question the underlying assumption that a force proportional to the IOP generates phosphenes.     

Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry

PURPOSE: To establish the reproducibility of a rebound tonometer in humans and the effect of corneal thickness on measurements, comparing it with Goldmann applanation tonometer. METHODS: In a first study designed to examine the reliability of the RBT, three experienced ophthalmologists undertook three consecutive intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in 12 eyes of 12 normal subjects. A cross-sectional study was then performed to compare measurements obtained using the two tonometers in 147 eyes of 85 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. RESULTS: Intraobserver coefficients of correlation obtained in the reproducibility study were 0.82, 0.73, and 0.87. Interobserver correlation was 0.82. There was a good correlation between IOP readings obtained by the RBT and the GAT (r = 0.865, P < 0.0001). RBT readings were consistently higher than GAT measurements (median difference, 1.8 +/- 2.8 mm Hg). A Bland-Altman plot indicated the 95% limits of agreement between the two methods were -3.7 to 7.3 mm Hg (slope = -0.022, P = 0.618). Using RBT, the point that best discriminated between patients with an IOP < or = 21 mm Hg and those with >21 mm Hg, as determined by the GAT was >23 mm Hg (sensitivity, 70.5%; specificity, 95.1%). In terms of pachymetry, the two tonometers behaved in a similar way, with correlation observed between IOP measurements and central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Rebound tonometry is a reproducible method of determining IOP in humans. In general, it tends to overestimate IOP compared with Goldmann applanation tonometry. The tonometers used in both methods are similarly affected by pachymetry.     

Clinical evaluation of rebound tonometer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability and repeatability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using a new rebound tonometer. METHODS: Intraocular pressure was measured in 42 healthy human eyes of subjects aged 18-30 years (mean +/- standard deviation [SD] 21.5 +/- 3.2 years) using the ICare Rebound and Goldmann tonometers in two separate sessions. RESULTS: Intraocular pressure measurements were found to read slightly, but not significantly, higher with the ICare tonometer compared with the Goldmann instrument in both sessions (first session: mean bias +/- SD + 0.50 +/- 2.33 mmHg; second session: mean bias +/- SD + 0.52 +/- 1.92 mmHg). Limits of agreement between repeated readings were +/- 5.11 mmHg for measurements taken with the ICare tonometer, compared with +/- 3.15 mmHg for measurements taken with the Goldmann method. CONCLUSION: Measurement of IOP in normal, healthy subjects using the ICare rebound tonometer produced a small, statistically insignificant, positive bias when compared with the Goldmann tonometer. Intersessional repeatability of IOP taken with the ICare is poorer than that of IOP taken with the Goldmann tonometer, but is comparable with that of other non-Goldman-type tonometers currently available.     

Telemedicine-friendly, portable tonometers: an evaluation for intraocular pressure screening

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings from two portable, telemedicine-friendly tonometers for suitability in glaucoma screening. METHODS: 213 eyes of 107 consenting patients attending an eye clinic were tested with an I-care tonometer and a Pulsair-Easy Eye puff-air tonometer. Gold standard IOP was measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Effect of central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and refractive errors on IOP measurements were also analysed. RESULTS: The mean difference of IOP by GAT and both the portable tonometers was +/- 2.2 mmHg. The analysis indicates minimal difference between IOP readings of both the portable tonometers. The mean difference between two consecutive readings by I-care was 0.01 mmHg. Using 21 mmHg as a threshold for suspected glaucoma, both the portable digital tonometers reported a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of >95%. In the subjects studied, central corneal thickness had statistically significant influence on IOP measurements while refractive errors and anterior chamber depth had no significant influence on IOP measurements with any tonometry. CONCLUSION: The IOP readings by both portable tonometers are comparable and were within clinically acceptable range from GAT. These portable tonometers are useful tools for IOP screening.     

Pediatric intraocular pressure measurements: Tonometers,central corneal thickness,and anesthesia

Measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) is the cornerstone of a comprehensive glaucoma examination. In babies or small children, however, IOP measurements are problematic, cannot often be performed at the slit lamp, and sometimes require general anesthesia. Therefore, it is essential for an ophthalmologist who examines a pediatric patient to be aware of the different tonometers used in children, as well as the effects of central corneal thickness and anesthesia on IOP measurements. Goldmann applanation tonometry is the gold standard for IOP assessment. Most alternative tonometers tend to give higher IOP readings than the Goldmann applanation tonometer, and readings between different tonometers are often not interchangeable. Similar to Goldmann tonometry, many of these alternative tonometers are affected by central corneal thickness, with thicker corneas having artifactually high IOP readings and thinner corneas having artifactually lower IOP readings. Although various machines can be used to compensate for corneal factors (e.g., the dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer), it is important to be aware that certain ocular diseases can be associated with abnormal central corneal thickness values and that their IOP readings need to be interpreted accordingly. Because induction and anesthetics can affect IOP, office IOPs taken in awake patients are always the most accurate.     

角膜厚度对三种不同眼压计测量的影响

目的:比较采用Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)、非接触眼压计(non-contact tonometer,NCT)和Schiotz眼压计(Schiotz tonometer,ST)的眼压(intraoeular pressure,IOP)测量,评估角膜中央厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)对读数的影响。方法:使用GAT、NCT和ST对所有患者的右眼进行眼压测量。超声角膜厚度测量法测定CCT。所有IOP及CCT测量由同一检查者进行。计算CCT25%(Q1)百分位数和75%(Q3)百分位数值,并通过这种方法将该组分为薄、中、厚角膜亚组。使用Statplus软件进行统计分析。结果:全系列144眼,GAT测量平均IOP为17.4±4.9mmHg,NCT为16.0±5.8mmHg,ST为14.0±4.0mmHg(Friedman方差分析P<0.01)。IOP水平和CCT之间的相关系数NCT为0.787(P<0.01),GAT为0.630(P<0.01),ST为0.565(P<0.01)。ST测量中,纠正的IOP误差和CCT之间的相关性在厚角膜明显弱(r=0.381,P=0.022)。结论:NCT是最易受不同CCT影响的设备。ST读数似乎比GAT和NCT读数受CCT的影响小。特别是在厚角膜,与NCT和GAT相比,ST可以被认为是一个更可靠的仪器。     

Correspondence of Tono-Pen intraocular pressure measurements performed at the central cornea and mid-peripheral cornea.

BACKGROUND: As the awareness of the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on Goldmann tonometry has increased, many publications have questioned the accuracy of Goldmann intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. The Tono-Pen, because it indents a much smaller surface area when compared to a Goldmann probe, may be less affected by corneal thickness variations when compared with Goldmann tonometry. METHODS: Forty human subjects with no history of refractive surgery participated in this study. The IOP of the right eye of each subject was measured with the Goldmann tonometer, the Tono-Pen at the central cornea, and the Tono-Pen at the mid-peripheral cornea. An ultrasonic DGH Pachette pachymeter was used to measure the central and mid-peripheral corneal thickness at the location of the IOP readings. RESULTS: Tono-Pen measurements at the central and mid-peripheral cornea highly correlated (r = 0.933), and did not significantly differ (p = 0.646). The IOP readings with the Goldmann tonometer (r= 0.406), the Tono-Pen at the central cornea (r = 0.453), and the Tono-Pen at the mid-peripheral cornea (r = 0.321) showed a positive correlation to corneal thickness. The Goldmann and Tono-Pen tonometers differed significantly in the measurement of IOP at the central cornea (p = 0.007), but were positively correlated (r = 0.674). CONCLUSIONS: The Tono-Pen IOP measurement at the central cornea highly approximated Tono-Pen IOP measurement at the mid-peripheral cornea. Furthermore, although not highly correlated, both the Goldmann and Tono-Pen tonometers showed a significantly positive correlation between IOP and corneal thickness measurements.     

Clinical evaluation of the new TGDc-01 "PRA" palpebral tonometer: comparison with contact and non-contact tonometry.

PURPOSE: The TGDc-01 "PRA" (Ryazan State Instrument, Ryazan, Russia) tonometer is a new portable small-sized tonometer that measures intraocular pressure (IOP) through the eyelid. The purpose of this study is to assess the repeatability of the TGDc-01 IOP measurements by comparing them against those obtained with Goldmann tonometer and with those from Perkins applanation tonometer, Xpert (Reichert, Depew, NY) noncontact tonometer, and Tono-Pen XL (Medtronic Solan, Jacksonville, FL) digital tonometer. METHODS: Fifty-eight right eyes of 58 young subjects were measured with each of the tonometers. Noncontact tonometry was performed first, followed by Goldmann and Perkins applanation tonometer (in random order), digital Tono-Pen XL, and finally TGDc-01 tonometer (sitting and supine position). Correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between the Goldmann tonometer and the remaining tonometers used in this study. Plotting the difference between the methods against mean was also done to compare the tonometers. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t-test. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated. RESULTS: TGDc-01 showed no statistical difference between the IOP measurements obtained in sitting and supine positions. A poor relationship between the TGDc-01 and Goldmann tonometer was found (r = 0.173; p = 0.001). Although the mean differences between Goldmann and Tonopen XL, Xpert, and TGDc-01 IOP measurements were statistically significant, the wider 95% LoA was observed when comparing the Goldmann and TGDc-01 tonometers. Computation of the 95% LoA resulted in a wide bias range when comparing the TGDc-01 with all the tonometers used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The TGDc-01 "PRA" tonometer was not comparable with the other techniques used in the study. The wide dispersion range of the values obtained shows low repeatability of the TGDc-01 for screening purposes. These results could be because of the technique of measurement and/or interindividual variables.     

Clinical comparison of the Keeler Pulsair 2000, American Optical MkII and Goldmann applanation tonometers

The aim of our study was to evaluate the performance of both the Keeler Pulsair 2000 and the American Optical (AO) MkII non-contact tonometers (NCT) and compare these to the reference Goldmann standard using the same group of patients. Forty-five patients (89 eyes) receiving medical treatment for primary open angle glaucoma had their intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with each instrument in a random order using five experienced observers. In the IOP range of the sample (6–27 mmHg) the difference between means for each tonometer was small. The Pulsair 2000 (mean = 19.06 mmHg, SD 6.28) read slightly higher than Goldmann (mean = 18.01 mmHg, SD 4.88), whereas the AO MkII read slightly lower (mean = 16.27 mmHg, SD 5.93). However, all differences were statistically significant ( P < 0.001, repeat measures ANOVA). Correlation coefficients for Pulsair 2000 versus Goldmann was r = 0.82 and for AO MkII versus Goldmann was r = 0.85. In addition, the repeatability for each NCT was assessed using 10 consecutive measurements on a further 10 subjects. The Pulsair 2000 showed significantly greater variation of IOP (mean SD 3.43 mmHg) than the AO MkII (mean SD 1.76 mmHg), confirming the need for taking at least four readings per eye with the Pulsair 2000. These variations are greater than that generally observed with Goldmann, and possible explanations why this occurs are discussed. In conclusion, subject to these limitations, both NCTs should be useful for measuring IOP as part of a screening protocol for glaucoma.     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in deep lamellar and penetrating keratoplasties

PURPOSE: To compare the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) with dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with corneal graft and to evaluate the influence of corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature (CC), and astigmatism on these methods. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cross-sectional study. METHODS: Eighteen eyes of 18 patients after penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) and 14 eyes of 14 patients after deep lamellar keratoplasty (DLKP) underwent IOP evaluation with DCT and GAT, and measurements of CCT, CC, and astigmatism. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between tonometers. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of ocular structural factors and running suture on IOP measurements obtained with both tonometers. RESULTS: IOP values obtained by DCT and GAT were strongly correlated in all eyes (r = .91; P < .001). DCT values measured 2.5 +/- 1.7 mm Hg higher than GAT readings (P < .001). A reduction of the mean IOP difference between DCT and GAT with an increase in IOP values (P < .001) was found. Regression analysis showed no effect of CCT, CC, astigmatism, and running suture on both DCT and GAT readings, either in DLKP or in PKP eyes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a good overall correlation between both tonometers but the agreement between instruments differs in high or low IOP ranges. The wide and varying 95% limits of agreement between DCT and GAT indicates that DCT provides IOP measurements on deep lamellar and penetrating keratoplasties which can be used in the clinical practice.     

Intraocular pressure measurement in mice: a comparison between Goldmann and rebound tonometry

PURPOSE: The development of mouse models of glaucoma requires methods to accurately measure the intraocular pressure (IOP) in this species. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of IOP measurements in mice between modified Goldmann and rebound tonometers. METHODS: IOP was measured either with a modified Goldmann or a rebound tonometer while simultaneously measuring the IOP using invasive manometry in enucleated eyes and in vivo. The level of IOP was controlled hydrostatically. The agreement and correlation between the IOP determined by invasive manometry and by either noninvasive method was evaluated. In addition, the IOP was determined by both noninvasive methods in a cohort of mice with laser-induced ocular hypertension (OHT), and the agreement and correlation between the two tonometry methods were evaluated. RESULTS: Measured IOP by either noninvasive tonometer correlated well with those recorded simultaneously by invasive manometry (r=0.98 for rebound and r=0.94 for Goldmann). In mice with OHT, the IOP correlation between rebound and modified Goldmann was moderate (r=0.71); the IOP measured by modified Goldmann tonometry was consistently higher than that by rebound by approximately 5 mmHg. However, the relative per cent increases in IOP were similar between the two methods. CONCLUSION: Both noninvasive methods of IOP measurements in mice are suitable to detect changes in IOP although rebound tonometry correlated better with the invasive manometry readings. The results suggest that the relative, rather than absolute, IOP offers a more reliable means of correlating findings from studies using different tonometers.     

Effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure and comparison of Topcon CT‐80 non‐contact tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry

Background

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the Topcon CT‐80 non‐contact tonometer (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), in different ranges of IOP in normal and glaucoma subjects, and to assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the IOP measurements in Asian Indian eyes.

Methods

Four hundred and two eyes of 402 subjects (193 newly diagnosed primary open angle glaucoma [POAG] and 209 normal) were enrolled for this prospective study. For each eye, IOP was measured with GAT by a glaucoma specialist and NCT by a trained optometrist. The IOP values were compared among the tonometers in the three different IOP ranges (≤ 12 mmHg, 13–20 mmHg and ≥ 21 mmHg) using Bland–Altman graphs. Correlation between GAT and NCT was assessed by Pearson correlation co‐efficient. CCT was measured with ultrasound pachymetry and its correlation with GAT and NCT was analysed using linear regression analysis.

Results

The mean paired difference of IOP between NCT and GAT was 1.556 ± 2.69 mmHg (r = 0.26, p = 0.006) at IOP range of ≤ 12 mmHg, ?1.665 ± 2.6 mmHg (r = 0.51, p < 0.0001) in IOP range of 13–20 mmHg and ?2.202 ± 3.44 mmHg (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) in the IOP range of ≥ 21 mmHg. Linear regression analysis showed a mean IOP variation of 0.27 mmHg per 10 μm change in CCT for NCT (p < 0.0001) and IOP change of 0.19 mmHg per 10 μm change in CCT for GAT (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

In this study of normotensive and POAG subjects, the Topcon CT‐80 NCT showed an overestimation of IOP at the lower range and underestimation of IOP in normal and higher ranges of IOP. Clinicians should keep in mind that CCT influences IOP measurement with both types of tonometer and that the IOP readings obtained with these tonometers are not interchangeable.

     

Performance of the rebound,noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice

Purpose: To compare rebound tonometry (RBT) and noncontact tonometry (NCT) using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as reference. Methods: The study sample was comprised of 108 eyes of 108 subjects consecutively examined at a general ophthalmology clinic. The order of use of the three tonometers was randomized at the study outset. The difference between the methods was plotted against the mean to compare the tonometers. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t‐test and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated. Differences with respect to GAT were assessed according to the international standard for ocular tonometers (ISO 8612). Results: Mean intraocular pressures (IOPs ± SD) obtained using the three instruments were GAT 17.5 ± 3.8 mmHg; RBT 18.5 ± 5.5 mmHg and NCT 17.4 ± 5.6 mmHg. The 95% LoA were from ?7.9 to +7.7 mmHg for NCT–GAT and from ?6.8 mmHg to +8.7 mmHg for RBT–GAT. A difference with respect to GAT under ±1 mmHg was observed in 11.1% of the eyes measured by NCT and 18.5% of eyes measured by RBT. According to the IOP ranges established by the ISO 8612, differences from GAT measurements greater than ±5 mmHg were always above the accepted level of 5%. Correlations between IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) were significant for all three tonometers. Conclusions: The rebound and noncontact tonometer behaved similarly when used to measure IOP taking GAT measurements as the reference standard. Neither tonometer fulfilled ISO 8612 requirements. Both were similarly influenced by CCT.