Comparison of intraocular pressure measurement between rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in treated glaucoma patients

Background: To compare the intraocular pressure readings obtained with the iCare rebound tonometer and the 7CR non‐contact tonometer with those measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry in treated glaucoma patients. Design: A prospective, cross‐sectional study was conducted in a private tertiary glaucoma clinic. Participants or Samples: One hundred nine (54 males : 55 females) patients including only eyes under medical treatment for glaucoma. Methods: Measurement by Goldmann applanation tonometry, iCare rebound tonometry and 7CR non‐contact tonometry. Main Outcome Measures: Intraocular pressure. Results: There were strong correlations between the intraocular pressure measurements obtained with Goldmann and both the rebound and non‐contact tonometers (Spearman r‐values ≥ 0.79, P < 0.001). However, there were small, statistically significant differences between the average readings for each tonometer. For the rebound tonometer, the mean intraocular pressure was slightly higher compared with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in the right eyes (P = 0.02), and similar in the left eyes (P = 0.93); however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The Goldmann correlated measurements from the non‐contact tonometer were lower than the average Goldmann reading for both right (P < 0.001) and left (P > 0.01) eyes. The corneal compensated measurements from the non‐contact tonometer were significantly higher compared with the other tonometers (P ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: The iCare rebound tonometer and the 7CR non‐contact tonometer measure intraocular pressure in fundamentally different ways to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. The resulting intraocular pressure values vary between the instruments and will need to be considered when comparing clinical versus home acquired measurements.     

Comparison of the Tono-Pen and Goldmann tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma

AIM: To estimate agreement between measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by the Tono-Pen and by the Goldmann tonometer. The hypothesis tested was that the mean difference in measurements would be <-2 mmHg. METHODS: A prospective, single-centre, comparison study was carried out. The Tono-Pen was compared to the Goldmann tonometer in 138 patients systematically selected from two glaucoma clinics and among selected patients known to have high pressures (n = 22). For both groups the investigators were masked to the value of the Goldmann readings, the instruments were used in random order, and duplicated readings were taken with both tonometers. RESULTS: In the systematically selected group, for right eyes, the mean difference in measurement between the Tono-Pen and Goldmann tonometer was -0.41 mmHg (SD: 2.59). The 95% limits of agreement were -5.5 to 4.7 mmHg, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.90. Results for left eyes were very similar. For patients with high pressures (> or =25 mmHg), the mean difference between instruments (Tono-Pen reading minus Goldmann reading): was -4.2 mmHg (P = 0.0004), SD: 4.6, 95% limits of agreement: -13.2 to 4.8 mmHg and ICC = 0.76. Combining the analysis for both groups, the Tono-Pen significantly underestimated the IOP when the pressure was >20 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: The Tono-Pen cannot replace the Goldmann tonometer in the sense that it will give the same readings of IOP. The accuracy of the Tono-Pen is increased, if at least two measurements are taken per eye and then averaged.     

非接触式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压的比较

目的:比较非接触眼压计(non-contacttonometer,NCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)测量眼压的差异,以评价非接触式眼压计在临床青光眼患者及疑似青光眼患者中的的应用价值。方法:志愿者174例348眼分别由专人进行非接触眼压计(NCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计眼压测量。结果:非接触眼压计(NCT)的测量结果低于Gold-mann压平眼压计且差异有显著性(19.6vs23.4,P<0.05),两者相关系数为r=0.783,差异在眼压>30mmHg组更为明显,相关系数为0.334。结论:非接触眼压计(NCT)可以用于临床普查,在青光眼的临床工作中建议使用Goldmann压平眼压计矫正。     

Comparison of the rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients

PURPOSE: To determine the agreement between the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by the rebound tonometer (RBT) and by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and to find out the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) values on IOP measurements in glaucoma patients. METHODS: IOP was measured with the RBT and GAT, respectively, in 61 eyes of 61 glaucoma patients. CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter after all IOP determinations had been made. The mean IOP measurement by the RBT was compared with the measurement by the GAT, by Student's t-test. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the clinical agreement between the two methods. The effect of CCT on measured IOP was explored by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 56.7+/-21.1 years (range: 30-80 years). There were 32 (52.46%) women and 29 (47.54%) men in the study group. The mean IOP readings were 18.70+/-4.76 mmHg using the RBT, and 18.27+/-3.49 mmHg using the GAT. The difference was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.43+/-2.55, P=0.2). A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <2.3 mmHg between the RBT and GAT. There was a strong correlation between the RBT and GAT readings (r=0.852, P<0.0001). The IOP measurements with the two methods were correlated with CCT (r=0.40, P=0.02 for the RBT and r=0.48, P<0.0001 for the GAT). The IOP increased 1.1 mmHg and 8 mmHg for every 100-microm increase in CCT for the GAT and RBT, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RBT slightly overestimated the IOP value by 0.43 mmHg on average when compared with the GAT. Nevertheless, the RBT readings appeared to be more affected by the various thicknesses of different corneas when compared with those obtained using the GAT.     

Goldmann眼压计与非接触眼压计测量青光眼患者眼压的对比分析

目的：：对比分析 Goldmann 压平式眼压计( Goldmann applanation tonometer, GAT)和非接触眼压计( non-contact tonometer,NCT)测量青光眼患者眼压的结果,寻找其规律性。方法：分别使用GAT和NCT测量108例206眼青光眼患者的眼压。结果：青光眼患者108例206眼的平均眼压：GAT测量为29.77±10.27mmHg,NCT测量为24.59±8.58mmHg,两者比较存在显著性差异(P<0.01),而且眼压越高,差异性越显著。结论：NCT 测量值较 GAT 测量值低,眼压越高,差值越大。建议使用GAT检查青光眼患者的眼压,以免漏诊和贻误治疗。     

Goldmann压平眼压计与非接触式眼压计测量眼压的对比研究

目的:比较Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmannapplanationtonometer,GAT)与非接触眼压计(non-contacttonometer,NCT)测量眼压的差异,以评价NCT与GAT测量的相关性。方法:对265例志愿者(529眼)分别采用Goldmann压平眼压计与非接触眼压计测量眼压。结果:非接触眼压计的测量结果低于Goldmann压平眼压计,且差异有显著性(19.13vs23.43,t=22.644,P<0.01),随眼压值的升高,两者相差幅度增大,差异在眼压〉30mmHg时更为明显,但相关系数逐渐变小。结论:非接触眼压计眼压测量值较Goldmann眼压测量值偏低,非接触眼压计眼压值为临界眼压时,需应用Gold-mann压平眼压计校正,以便及时发现病理性眼压升高,避免青光眼的漏诊和失治。     

Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with different contact tonometers in young healthy persons

AIM: To analyze the correlation of Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), I-Care tonometer and Tono-Pen tonometer results in young healthy persons, and to investigate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements recorded with these tonometers. METHODS: We conducted a pilot clinical study in 78 eyes of 78 subjects aged 22-28 years old (44 women and 34 men; mean age 23.8±1.19y). IOP was measured using GAT, I-Care and Tono-Pen tonometers, followed by measurements of CCT. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0. RESULTS: The mean IOPs and standard deviation (±SD) for GAT, I-Care and Tono-Pen were 15.62±2.281 mm Hg, 16.29±2.726 mm Hg and 16.32±2.393 mm Hg, respectively. The mean CCT was 555.15±29.648 μm. Clear positive correlations between GAT and I-Care, GAT and Tono-Pen, and I-Care and Tono-Pen tonometers were found (r=0.867, P<0.001; r=0.861, P<0.001; r=0.915, P<0.001, respectively). In comparison between devices, Bland–Altman analysis showed a significant mean difference (MD) in the measurements by GAT and I-Care of ?0.679 mm Hg and by GAT and Tono-Pen of ?0.705 mm Hg ( P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between I-Care and Tono-Pen ( P>0.05). Both non-gold standard tonometers were affected by CCT; that is, both I-Care and Tono-Pen tonometer values were significantly higher with higher CCT means (>555 μm; MD=?1.282, P<0.001; MD=?0.949, P<0.001, respectively) compared with GAT. CONCLUSION: Both I-Care and Tono-Pen tonometers overestimated IOP compared with the GAT values. Either the I-Care or Tono-Pen tonometer could be used instead of GAT because there was no significant difference between their results. Higher CCT values (>555 μm) were associated with overestimated IOP values.     

Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of a new rebound tonometer, Icare^® PRO (Icare PRO), by comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in a study on patients with glaucoma. Methods: One hundred and seventy‐two eyes of 86 subjects were enrolled in this study. All of the subjects were examined with an autorefractometer, Icare PRO, slit‐lamp biomicroscope, GAT, ultrasound A‐scan and pachymeter. Three intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were obtained by Icare PRO and GAT. The intraobserver reliabilities were established by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients. The Bland–Altman plot was used to compare the Icare PRO and GAT. Results: There was a good correlation between the IOP measurement by GAT and that by Icare PRO (r = 0.6995, p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficients of Icare PRO and GAT were 0.778 and 0.955, respectively. The IOP differences between Icare PRO and GAT (mean: 1.92 mmHg; SD: 3.29 mmHg; 95% limit of agreement: ?4.52 to 8.37 mmHg) did not vary over the wide range of central corneal thickness (p = 0.498), age (p = 0.248), axial length (p = 0.277) or spherical equivalent (p = 0.075). Conclusions: Although IOP with Icare PRO was higher than that with GAT, especially at lower GAT IOP value, Icare PRO was found to be a reliable method and showed a good correlation with GAT. The IOP difference between Icare PRO and GAT was not affected by the central corneal thickness, age, axial length or spherical equivalent. Icare PRO can be expected not only to be a good screening tool but also to be a good substitute for GAT.     

Evaluation of discomfort of Goldmann tonometry without anaesthetic

Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) is considered the gold standard technique for tonometry. It is a procedure involving administration of topical anaesthetic (a drug which could have several side effects). This prevents a large number of vision care practitioners from using GAT, due to legal restrictions regarding the use of these ophthalmic drugs. The purpose of this study was to establish whether the discomfort experienced during non‐anaesthetic Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (NAGAT) would be acceptable to subjects. The intensity of pain inflicted by GAT, NAGAT, Non‐Contact Tonometry (NCT) and Schirmer test was assessed on thirty‐one subjects enrolled in the study using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to assess pain. The GAT was performed on one eye and the other three procedures were carried out in random order on the fellow eye. Initially, each subject was asked to score their Maximum Pain Without Complaint (MPWC). The MPWC and the Schirmer test were used as references to grade the pain levels. The scores for the five procedures were registered using the NRS (0–10) and compared using a non‐parametric statistical analysis (Friedman test and a post‐hoc analysis). In addition, IOP results for GAT and NAGAT were also compared using the t‐test. The scores obtained on the NRS ranged from 0–4, 0–5, 0–8, 0–7 and 3–8 with a median of 1, 1, 2, 2, and 5, respectively for NCT, GAT, NAGAT, Schirmer and MPWC. A statistically significant difference (p = 0.01) was found between the MPWC and the four clinical tests but no difference was found between the clinical tests. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.71) between the IOP results for GAT and NAGAT, 14.0 ± 2.0 mmHg and 13.8 ± 2.0 mmHg (mean ± 1S.D.) respectively. The Goldmann Applanation Tonometry without anaesthetic (NAGAT) can be performed with an acceptable level of discomfort for the majority of subjects and should be performed identically to a traditional GAT, informing the subjects about the possibility of feeling a small discomfort.     

The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness

Purpose:  To assess agreement between the iCare rebound tonometer and Goldmann tonometry and to assess the influence of central corneal thickness and the value of scleral rebound tonometer readings.
Methods:  Prospective single-centre cross-sectional study comparing iCare rebound tonometer (RT) intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken from corneal and scleral locations to Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) readings in 100 subjects attending ophthalmology clinics.
Results:  There was a significant difference between RT and GAT, with RT tending to overestimate IOP. The mean difference between RT and GAT measurements was 3.36 mmHg. The mean difference between the log of RT and the log of GAT measurements was 0.2356, a ratio of 1.27 ( P  < 0.0001). A formula derived from a linear regression analysis suggested that a 10% increase in CCT increased the RT IOP reading by 9.9%. Scleral RT readings showed no relationship to GAT readings.
Conclusions:  The rebound tonometer cannot replace the Goldmann tonometer in the office setting given the wide limits of agreement between the two devices. Corneal rebound tonometer readings are influenced by CCT whereas scleral rebound tonometer readings are of no value.     

Comparison of rebound and applanation tonometry in the management of patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

AIM: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained with the iCare rebound tonometer (RBT) with values obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and to evaluate the impact of possible differences on management decisions. METHODS: The IOP was measured with the iCare RBT and GAT in 45 consecutive patients in a nurse-led glaucoma unit. The outcome measures were the IOP difference between the methods and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for IOP measurements. In all subjects where the IOP readings differed by >3 mmHg between the RBT and GAT, two ophthalmologists were independently asked to recommend treatment and/or follow-up intervals, based on the patients' clinical data and the IOP values. RESULTS: The RBT overestimated the IOP compared with GAT in 67% of the cases (30/45). In 78% (35/45) the IOP difference was within +/-3 mmHg. When an extreme value of 15 mmHg difference was excluded, the 95% LoA was +/-4.31 mmHg. In five of the 10 patients with an IOP difference of > +/- 3 mmHg the difference would have led to change in therapy; in three more patients the follow-up interval would have been changed. In the remaining two patients the difference in IOP would not have led to any change in management. CONCLUSIONS: The mean difference between RBT and GAT was small (1.5 +/- 3 mmHg) compared with the published repeatability of GAT values. Yet, the difference was found to have clinical implications in 18% (8/45) of the patients.     

Diaton tonometry: an assessment of validity and preference against Goldmann tonometry

Background: To assess agreement between the Diaton, a new transpalpebral tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometry, the accepted gold standard. Design: Comparative study of two devices in a hospital setting. Participants: Two hundred and fifty‐one patients attending the eye casualty and general ophthalmology clinics at St James' University Hospital, Leeds between February and December 2009. Methods: Intraocular pressure was measured using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Diaton tonometry by one examining ophthalmologist. Patient preference for either technique was also recorded. Main Outcome Measures: Intraocular pressure measured by Diaton was compared with intraocular pressure measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry. Limits of agreement were determined using the Bland‐Altman method. Results: Two hundred and fifty right eyes underwent both Goldmann applanation tonometry and Diaton tonometry. Mean intraocular pressure was 13.8 ± 3.6 mmHg using Goldmann applanation tonometry and 13.2 ± 4.3 mmHg using Diaton tonometry. Upper and lower limits of agreement were +8.4 mmHg and ?9.6 mmHg, respectively. Order of intraocular pressure measurement and positioning did not influence limits of agreement in a clinically significant manner. Overall, more patients expressed preference for Diaton tonometry (40.2%) than Goldmann applanation tonometry (30.3%). Those aged 50 or less were more likely to prefer Diaton tonometry. Conclusions: The Diaton tonometer is portable, lightweight, user‐friendly and well tolerated by patients. However, it shows poor agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry, thereby precluding it from being regarded as a substitute in routine clinical practice.     

Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry*.

Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, were compared with each other and to Goldmann applanation tonometry in a large group of healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma (n = 103). Measurements performed with the ICARE and the Tonopen XL were in good agreement with that of the Goldmann tonometer. Intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured with the TGDc-01 were significantly lower and showed more variability. The 95% limits of agreement (portable tonometer - Goldmann) were -17 to +10 mmHg for the TGDc-01, -6 to +7 mmHg for the ICARE and -6 to +8 mmHg for the Tonopen. Corneal thickness could not explain the differences between an IOP measured with the portable tonometers and an IOP measured with the Goldmann tonometer. Patient comfort was slightly higher for ICARE when compared with the Tonopen.     

Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods

AIM: To evaluate the impact of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed by three different tonometers. METHODS: IOP in 132 healthy eyes of 66 participants was measured using three different tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ICare rebound tonometer (RT). CCT and corneal curvature were assessed. RESULTS: In healthy eyes, DCT presents significantly higher values of IOP than GAT (17.34±3.69 and 15.27±4.06 mm Hg, P<0.0001). RT measurements are significantly lower than GAT (13.56±4.33 mm Hg, P<0.0001). Compared with GAT, DCT presented on average 2.51 mm Hg higher values in eyes with CCT<600 μm and 0.99 mm Hg higher results in eyes with CCT≥600 μm. The RT results were lower on average by 1.61 and 1.95 mm Hg than those obtained by GAT, respectively. Positive correlations between CCT in eyes with CCT<600 μm were detected for all IOP measurement techniques, whereas a similar relationship was not observed in eyes with thicker corneas. A correlation between IOP values and keratometry in the group with CCT<600 μm was not detected with any of the tonometry methods. In thicker corneas, a positive correlation was found for GAT and mean keratometry values (R=0.369, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: The same method should always be chosen for routine IOP control, and measurements obtained by different methods cannot be compared. All analysed tonometry methods are dependent on CCT; thus, CCT should be taken into consideration for both diagnostics and monitoring.     

Evaluation of some factors affecting the agreement between the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor and the Goldmann applanation tonometer measurements

Background: Our aim was to examine whether training level and ocular factors could account for part of the difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) measured using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and Proview Eye Pressure Monitor (PPT). Methods: One hundred and nineteen individuals (238 eyes) were enrolled in the study. The mean age was 35.8 years (range 21 to 79). All study participants obtained IOP measurements using the PPT after hearing instructions on how to perform PPT. Glaucoma patients obtained additional IOP measurements using PPT after viewing an instructional video and after 30 days of home use. IOP was also measured using the GAT at each experimental session. Results: The difference in IOP measured by the GAT and the PPT was 0.55 ± 3.38 mmHg, 0.17 ± 3.79 mmHg and ‐1.30 ± 3.79 mmHg for myopic, emmetropic and hypermetropic groups, respectively, which were statistically significant (ANCOVA; p = 0.014). The difference in IOP between GAT and PPT was not significantly different for measurements obtained after verbal instructions, instructional video or after 30 days of home use (Repeated‐ANCOVA; p = 0.30). The overall agreement between the GAT and the PPT was poor. Intra‐class correlation coefficient was 0.575, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of agreement was ‐6.93 to +6.73 mmHg. Conclusion: There was a small systematic difference in IOP measured by the GAT and PPT when comparing the different refraction groups; however, this level of difference between the groups is unlikely to be of clinical significance. The level of training in using the PPT did not influence its measurements. The limits of agreement between the PPT and the GAT were wide and long‐term use of PPT did not improve its agreement.     

Tono-Pen眼压计对兔眼不同部位眼压测量值的相关性研究

目的研究兔眼球不同部位测量眼压(intraocular pressure,IOP)值的相关性规律。方法采用Tono-Pen眼压计全身麻醉下测量40只新西兰白兔角膜中央、旁中央区、角膜缘及巩膜部位IOP值,同时采用Schiotz眼压计测量角膜中央IOP值。采用SPSS软件分析不同部位IOP测量值间的相关性。结果兔角膜中央区、旁中央区、角膜缘及角膜缘后4mm巩膜部位IOP值分别为(19.44±2.33)mmHg(1kPa=7.5mmHg)、(19.44±1.95)mmHg、(21.66±4.26)mmHg和(21.83±4.84)mmHg,Schiotz眼压计测量角膜中央IOP值(19.27±3.14)mmHg。角膜旁中央区与角膜中央区IOP值有相关性,检验有统计学意义(R=0.615,P=0.007<0.01),而角膜缘、角膜缘后4mm巩膜与角膜中央区IOP值相关系数及P值分别为0.537/0.021、0.215/0.391。结论采用Tono-Pen眼压计测量兔眼角膜旁中央区或角膜缘眼压可以反映眼压实际值。     

非接触式眼压计与回弹式眼压计在眼压测量中的准确度分析

目的：分析非接触式眼压计(non contact tonometer,NCT)、ICare回弹式眼压计(ICare rebound tonometer,RBT)在青光眼患者中眼压测量结果的准确性。

方法：回顾性病例对照研究。选取青光眼患者113例185眼。用RBT、NCT和Goldmann眼压计(GAT)分别于9：00、16：00两次进行眼压测量并记录为两组数据,分别用秩和检验、国际标准8621指南评估其准确性,Bland-Altman一致性分析两组测量结果的一致性,并以GAT测量值作为标准将数据分为异常眼压组(<10mmHg或>21mmHg)和正常眼压组(10～21mmHg),在不同组间分析其一致性。应用Spearman相关分析眼压计间的相关性。

结果：GAT、NCT和RBT三组测量值间存在差异(P<0.01); GAT获得的眼压测量值与RBT和NCT测量值间存在相关性(r_s=0.71、0.77,P<0.001)。NCT与GAT测量值接近(P=0.92),而RBT与GAT相比,眼压测量值较高(P<0.05)。然而NCT、RBT同GAT相比一致性界限范围均较宽,分别为-6.2～6.0、-5.2～7.6mmHg,在正常眼压组一致性界限范围分别为-5.9～5.9、-4.3～7.5mmHg,在非正常眼压组分别为-7.3～6.4、-7.5～5.6mmHg。根据ISO 8612指南进行评价,NCT和RBT在三组中超过95%的一致性限制的异常值分别为3.9%、11.3%、12.2%和26.3%、11.3%、12.2%。

结论：NCT和RBT均不能简单代替GAT用于青光眼患者眼压的测量。在青光眼患者中,随着测量值偏离正常眼压范围,NCT和RBT的测量误差也有所增大。     

三种眼压计对维族和汉族大学生眼压测量值比较

目的：比较Goldmann眼压计、非接触式眼压计与Schiotz眼压计对维吾尔族、汉族大学生眼压测量值结果。

方法：横断面研究。分别采用Goldmann眼压计、非接触式眼压计与Schiotz眼压计测量维吾尔族、汉族大学生眼压。比较两族整体间、同族不同性别间、不同眼别间三种眼压计测得的眼压值。

结果：相同眼压计对维吾尔族及汉族大学生眼压测量值差异有统计学意义(P<0.05); 相同眼压计对同族不同性别间眼压测量值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05); 相同眼压计对不同眼别间眼压测量值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),汉族学生比维吾尔族学生眼压测量值高(P<0.05),非接触式眼压计比Goldmann眼压计眼压测量值偏高(P<0.05),非接触式眼压计比Schiotz眼压计眼压测量值要小(P<0.05)。

结论：同一眼压测量仪对同族不同性别间及不同眼别间无差异,汉族学生比维吾尔族学生眼压测量值高,Schiotz眼压计眼压值测量结果显著高于非接触式眼压计,而非接触式眼压计眼压测量值高于Goldmann眼压计。     

非接触式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压的比较

目的 :比较非接触式眼压计 ( NCT)和 Goldm ann压平眼压计测量眼压的差异。方法 :对 112例 ( 2 2 0眼 )志愿者分别进行 NCT和 Goldmann压平眼压计眼压测量及中央角膜厚度测量 ,并对其中 16 8眼进行自动验光检查。结果 :NCT和 Goldmann眼压计眼压测量值分别为 1.98± 0 .6 9k Pa和 2 .34± 0 .77k Pa。 NCT眼压测量值较 Goldmann眼压测量值偏低 0 .36± 0 .37k Pa( P<0 .0 5 )。眼压在 1.33～ 2 .6 7k Pa内 ,二种眼压计测量眼压值偏差最小。角膜厚度和眼球屈光度与 NCT眼压测量值分别呈明显正相关和负相关。结论 :NCT眼压测量值较Goldmann眼压测量值偏低 ,NCT眼压值为临界眼压时 ,应应用 Goldm ann压平眼压计校正     

Comparison of ICare and IOPen vs Goldmann applanation tonometry according to international standards 8612 in glaucoma patients

AIM: To compare IOPen and ICare rebound tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) according to International Standards Organization (ISO) 8612 criteria. METHODS: Totally 191 eyes (n=107 individuals) were included. Criteria of ISO 8612 were fulfilled: 3 clusters of IOP, measured by GAT, were formed. The GAT results were given as mean±standard deviation. RESULTS: GAT (19.7±0.5 mm Hg) showed a significant correlation to ICare (19.8±0.5 mm Hg) (r=0.547, P<0.001) and IOPen (19.5±0.5 mm Hg) (r=0.526, P<0.001). According to ISO 8612 criteria in all 3 IOP groups the number of outliers (of the 95% limits of agreement) exceeded 5% for ICare and IOPen vs GAT: No.1 (n=68) 29.4% and 22.1%, No.2 (n=62) 35.5% and 37.1%, No.3 (n=61) 26.2% and 42.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The strict requirements of the ISO 8612 are not fulfilled in a glaucoma collective by ICare and IOPen at present. As long as the Goldmann tonometry is applicable it should be used first of all for reproducible IOP readings. ICare and IOPen tonometry should be considered as an alternative tool, if application of Goldmann tonometry is not possible.