Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计的临床比较

目的:了解Tono-Pen眼压计的临床实用性。方法:62例(111只眼)随机先后用Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计进行眼压测量,比较两种眼压计测量值的差异。结果:111只眼中,用Goldmann眼压计测量的眼压平均值为(15.82±4.88)mmHg,用Tono-Pen眼压计测量的眼压平均值为(16.34±4.33)mmHg,两者有显著性差异。眼压在9～30mmHg范围时,两种眼压计的测量值之差为(-0.51±2.24)mmHg,差异无显著性。在眼压低于9mmHg时,有过高估计眼压的趋向;在眼压高于30mmHg时,有过低估计眼压的趋向。Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计的相关系数为0.865,呈密切相关。结论:Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计有很好的相关性,尤其是在眼压为9～30mmHg范围。眼科学报 2002;18:226-229.     

一种新型凸面眼压计的设计原理及研制

目的为获得眼压测量的更大精确性,设计并研制一架新型凸面眼压计。方法根据Goldmann压平眼压计的基本原理,将Goldmann压平眼压计测压头的平面改成曲率半径为7.8mm的凸面,并在凸面中央刻一个3.06mm直径的圆形刻线,作为压迫角膜固定面积的标志。其测量方法与Goldmann压平眼压计相同。用本眼压计对55例(109只眼)进行了初步眼压测试,并与Goldmann压平眼压计进行对照。结果凸面眼压计的平均眼压为(16.08±5.13)mmHg,Goldmann压平眼压计平均眼压为(14.96±4.27)mmHg,t值=0.28,P>0.05,两者差异无显著统计学意义;r=0.82,两者有较好的正相关。结论本眼压计有较高的准确性,可用作临床眼压测量。     

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。     

动态轮廓眼压计与压平眼压计的比较

目的:评价和比较动态轮廓眼压计和Goldmann压平眼压计测得的LASIK手术后眼压值。方法:接受准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)的近视患者34例68眼,分别于术前和术后3mo使用动态轮廓眼压计(Pascal dynamic contour tonometer,PDCT)和Goldmann压平眼压计(the Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)进行眼压测量。比较手术前后两种测量方法测得的眼压值的差异。多元线性相关分析研究GAT,PDCT测量值和角膜曲率及角膜中央厚度(CCT)之间的相关性。结果:LASIK手术后GAT测量值较术前低,而PDCT值和术前比较差异则无统计学意义。角膜曲率、CCT和GAT读数呈线性相关,而与PDCT读数无关。结论:GAT测量得到的眼压低于实际值。PDCT测眼压不受角膜曲率和中央角膜厚度影响。     

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。     

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。     

手持式非接触眼压计测量值准确性的比较

目的:对手持式非接触眼压计测量眼压的准确性及可靠性进行评价。方法:分别采用keeler,手持非接触眼压计和R900,Goldmann压平眼压计对58例患者(113只眼)的限内压进行了测量并对两种测量方法的测量结果进行了比较。结果:采用手持非接触眼压计测得的平均眼压为16.31±5.59mmHg(1mmHg=0.1333kpa),采用Goldmann压平眼压计测得的平均眼压值为17.49±6.13mmHg。经统计学t检验,两种测量结果差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。经直线相关和回归分析发现两种方法测量值间存在正相关(r=0.8942,b=0.8154)。结论:手持非接触眼压计同Goldmann压平眼压计相比具有同样的精确性和可靠性,可用于青光眼临床和青光眼筛选。眼科学报 1995;11:86—88。     

中央角膜厚度对3种眼压计眼压测量值的影响

目的比较分析不同中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)下Icare回弹式眼压计、Goldmann压平式眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)和动态轮廓眼压计(dynamic contour tonometry,DCT)的眼压测量结果,探讨CCT对3种眼压计测量值的影响。方法 对78例患者152眼分别用Icare、GAT、DCT3种眼压计进行眼压测量,并进行CCT的测量,对比不同CCT下3种眼压计的测量结果,分析眼压测量值与CCT的关系。结果 在全部受测者中Icare、GAT、DCT测得的眼压均值分别为(19.16±5.03)mmHg(1 kPa=7.5 mmHg)、(18.41±4.52)mmHg和(17.23±3.69)mmHg,三者之间有显著差异(F=7.256,P=0.001)。Icare和GAT的眼压测量值均与CCT显著相关(r=0.341,P<0.001;r=0.333,P<0.001),CCT每改变10μm,Icare的眼压值改变0.47 mmHg,GAT的眼压值改变0.41 mmHg;而DCT的眼压测量值与CCT无显著相关(r=0.032,P=0.699)。结论 Icare、GAT的眼压测量值均明显受CCT的影响,而Icare受CCT影响的程度较GAT的稍大,DCT的眼压测量值基本不受CCT的影响。     

凸面眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计C值测量结果比较

目的比较我们自行研制的凸面眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计(以下简称Goldmann眼压计)所测量的C值,以评价凸面眼压计在临床的应用价值。方法分别应用凸面眼压计与Goldmann眼压计测量15例(30只眼)正常人的C值;15例(15只眼)青光眼患者的C值,并作统计学分析。结果凸面眼压计C值是Goldmann眼压计C值的两倍,两种眼压计C值测量结果差异有显著性意义(P<0.01)。结论用凸面眼压计所测得的C值更接近于流体压力方法测得的C值,因此凸面眼压计更适合于眼压描记,具有临床使用价值。     

非接触眼压计测量的评价——与Goldmann眼压计的比较

目的 :对比非接触式眼压计 (NCT)与Goldmann眼压计所测量的眼压值以评价非接触式眼压计在临床的应用价值。方法 :10 5例 2 0 9只眼纳入本观察 ,其中 14 2只眼作了验光、眼轴及角膜曲率测量 ,并调查患者对两种眼压计的接受度。结果 :两种眼压计测量结果的相关系数为 0 975 ,两者差异有显著性 (t值 -7 949,P <0 0 0 1)。非接触式眼压计的测量结果高于Goldmann眼压计 ,尤其在眼压 >2 1mmHg组更为明显 (t值 -5 5 0 6,P <0 0 0 1)。角膜曲率、屈光度、散光、眼轴与两者测量值间差d无相关性 ,相关系数分别为 -0 0 5 4,-0 0 41,-0 13 5 ,0 113 ,P值均 >0 0 5。患者对非接触式眼压计的接受程度大于Goldmann眼压计结论 :非接触式眼压计可用于临床普查 ,但在青光眼的临床工作中建议使用Goldmann压平式眼压计     

Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in pseudoexfoliation syndrome

Purpose: To evaluate differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) and Dynamic Controur Tonometry (DCT) in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX). Methods: Thirty‐eight patients (38 eyes) with PEX in both eyes (pseudoexfoliative group, PG) as well as 19 patients (19 eyes) without PEX in either eye (control group, CG), were included. All eyes were phakic. GAT, DCT, the central corneal thickness (CCT) and the axial length of the eyeball (AL) were measured and the difference between GAT and DCT (dIOP) was calculated. Differences in dIOP between CG and PG and correlations of dIOP with CCT and AL were examined. Results: dIOP was significantly (P = 0.02) higher in PG (mean value 3.69 mmHg), compared with CG (mean value 2.15 mmHg). In PG (but not in CG), dIOP was also significantly correlated with AL but not with CCT. Conclusion: The fact that dIOP was significantly higher in PG than in CG implies that PEX may affect ocular biomechanical properties. The significant association of dIOP with AL but not with CCT is in agreement with previous reports and complies with the fact that pseudoexfoliative material is not deposited in corneal stroma.     

Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals

AIM: To investigate the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) as measured by a Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), as well as the relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP as measured by ORA, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). METHODS: A total of 158 healthy individuals (296 eyes) were chosen randomly for measurement of IOP. After CCT was measured using A-ultrasound (A-US), IOP was measured by ORA, GAT, and DCT devices in a randomized order. The IOP values acquired using each of the three tonometries were compared, and the relationship between CCT and IOP values were analyzed separately. Two IOP values, Goldmann-correlated IOP value (IOPg) and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), were got using ORA. Three groups were defined according to CCT: 1) thin cornea (CCT<520μm); 2) normal-thickness cornea (CCT: 520–580μm); and 3) thick cornea (CCT>580μm) groups. RESULTS: In normal subjects, IOP measurements were 14.95±2.99mmHg with ORA (IOPg), 15.21±2.77mmHg with ORA (IOPcc), 15.22±2.77mmHg with GAT, and 15.49±2.56mmHg with DCT. Mean differences were 0.01±2.29mmHg between IOPcc and GAT (P>0.05) and 0.28±2.20mmHg between IOPcc and DCT (P>0.05). There was a greater correlation between IOPcc and DCT (r=0.946, P=0.000) than that between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.845, P=0.000). DCT had a significant correlation with GAT (r=0.854, P=0.000). GAT was moderately correlated with CCT (r=0.296, P<0.001), while IOPcc showed a weak but significant correlation with CCT (r=?0.155, P=0.007). There was a strong negative correlation between CCT and the difference between IOPcc and GAT(r=-0.803,P=0.000), with every 10μm increase in CCT resulting in an increase in this difference of 0.35mmHg. The thick cornea group (CCT>580μm) showed the least significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.859, P=0.000); while the thin cornea group (CCT＜520μm) had the most significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.926, P=0.000). The correlated differences between IOPcc and DCT were not significant in any of the three groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Measurement of IOP by ORA has high repeatability and is largely consistent with GAT measurements. Moreover, the ORA measurements are affected only to a small extent by CCT, and are likely to be much closer to the real IOP value than GAT.     

双眼之间PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计眼压测量值的比较及OPA与眼压的关系

目的分析双眼之间PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计(dynamic contour tonometer,DCT)眼压(intraocular pressure,IOP)测量值的差异及眼脉动振幅(ocular pulse amplitude,OPA)与IOP的关系,探讨双眼DCT IOP差异形成的可能影响因素。方法 2007年4月至2008年2月就诊于我院的非青光眼患者147例(293眼)分别用DCT与GAT进行双眼IOP测量,同时记录OPA值,两种仪器的测量顺序随机确定,同一种眼压计均先测右眼,再测左眼。双眼之间IOP值及OPA的比较采用配对t检验,OPA值与DCT所测IOP值的相关性采用Spearman双变量相关分析。结果 129例(258眼)完成DCT测量,其左眼、右眼IOP值分别为(17.3±3.1)mmHg(1kPa=7.5mmHg)、(17.6±3.1)mmHg,差值(0.4±1.7)mmHg;左右眼OPA值分别为(2.2±0.9)mmHg、(2.4±0.9)mmHg,左眼均低于右眼,双眼之间DCT所测IOP值及OPA值差异均具有显著统计学意义(t=2.399,P=0.018;t=3.49,P=0.001);147例GAT测量中排除5例(9眼)双眼IOP差值大于4mmHg,其余284眼其左眼、右眼GAT所测IOP值分别为(16.2±3.5)mmHg、(16.1±3.4)mmHg,二者之间差异无统计学意义(t=-1.45,P=0.149)。PASCAL DCT所测得的左右眼OPA值与IOP值均呈弱相关(r=0.262,P=0.002;r=0.259,P=0.002)。结论 DCT所测得的IOP值及OPA值其右眼均高于左眼,且OPA与IOP呈弱相关关系,而GAT无这种表现。     

Reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry. Comparison with TonoPenXL and Goldmann applanation tonometry - a clinical study on 323 normal eyes

BACKGROUND: The PASCAL Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT) is a new diagnostic approach for the digital measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes with glaucoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of DCT in normal eyes and to compare DCT with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and TonoPenXL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study on 323 normal, consecutive eyes was performed. Eyes with an IOP of more than 23 mmHg (GAT) were excluded. Central corneal power (Zeiss Ophthalmometer) and central corneal thickness (ultrasound pachymetry: Tomey AL-1000) were taken. The IOP readings were obtained as follows: 3 x DCT [quality of measurement, IOP and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) were taken], 1 x TonoPenXL, GAT, finally: once again DCT to evaluate the tonography effect. RESULTS: The quality of 3 following IOP (DCT) readings was good (quality Q1 = 43.4 %, Q2 = 32.5 %, Q3 = 22.7 %). The reproducibility of the IOP (DCT) measurements was excellent (first measurement IOP (DCT) = 18.1 +/- 3.4 mmHg, second measurement IOP (DCT) = 18.1 +/- 3.4 mmHg, third measurement IOP (DCT) = 17.8 +/- 3.4 mmHg, Cronbach's alpha = 0.976). First and second IOP (DCT) values showed a strong correlation (r = 0.93). A significant tonography effect was observed between first and third IOP (DCT) measurements (0.4 mmHg; p = 0.004). Mean OPA (DCT) was 3.0 mmHg during the first three measurements (Cronbach's alpha = 0.964). IOP (DCT) and OPA (DCT) reproducibility showed no laterality. IOP (DCT) (17.7 +/- 3.4 mmHg) was significantly higher than IOP (TonoPenXL) (16.0 +/- 3.2 mmHg, n = 275; p < 0.001) and higher than IOP (GAT) (14.5 +/- 3.1 mmHg, n = 275; p < 0.001). The effect of tonography between the third and last IOP (DCT) measurement was zero (p = 0.6). IOP (DCT) and IOP (GAT) values were only weak correlated with central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: IOP and OPA values measured with the DCT are extraordinary reproducible in normal eyes. Frequently, DCT detects higher IOP values than those obtained with TonoPenXL and GAT. A reproducible measurement of IOP and OPA may open new diagnostic fields, e. g., in glaucoma detection or ocular vascular diseases.     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken using dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) with IOP readings taken with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: The present study included 100 eyes in 100 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After pachymetry DCT and GAT were performed. Intraocular pressures as measured with DCT and GAT were compared with one another and with central corneal thickness (CCT). Results: Mean DCT IOP measurements (20.1 ± 4.3 mmHg) were significantly (p < 0.001) higher than GAT IOP values (17.9 ± 4.7 mmHg). The mean difference between DCT and GAT measurements was 2.1 mmHg (range ? 3.4 to 9.7 mmHg). The difference followed a normal distribution. Measurements made with DCT and GAT correlated significantly with one another (Spearman’s rho = 0.761, p < 0.001). Neither GAT nor DCT measurements showed a significant correlation with CCT (537 ± 39 μm, range 458–656 μm). Multivariate regression analysis has shown that the difference between DCT and GAT is influenced significantly by ocular pulse amplitude (r = ? 0.334, p = 0.001) and it is not influenced by CCT (r = ? 0.106, p = 0.292). Conclusions: In eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, DCT facilitates suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT readings. Variation in CCT cannot by itself explain the differences in measurements taken with DCT and GAT in a number of eyes.     

DCT和GAT对LASIK手术前后眼压的比较性研究

目的 评价动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)和Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)对在准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)手术前后眼压测量值的变化.方法 取71例141只眼近视患者在LASIK术前和术后一周分别进行角膜厚度(CCT)、GAT、DCT测量.结果 ①LASIK手术前后DCT测得值尤显著性差异(P=0.062),GAT测得值有显著性差异(P＜0.001),CCT测得值有显著性差异(P＜0001).②Bland-Altman分析示LASIK手术前后DCT与GAT两种测量方法均呈现高度一致性.术前DCT测量值高于GAT测量值1.1mmHg,95%可信区间为(-0.6,2.8)mmHg;术后DCT测量值高于GAT测量值8.2mmHg,95%可信区间为(5.3,11.1)mmhg.③△GAT与△CCT呈正相关,△DCT与△CCT无统计相关性.结论 DCT测量值不受LASIK手术切削的影响,更适合于LASIK手术前后眼压的测量.     

三种不同眼压计眼压测量值的比较

目的:比较分析Icare回弹式眼压计、GAT和DCT的眼压测量结果,探讨Icare回弹式眼压计的临床性能。方法:78例152眼分别用Icare,GAT,DCT3种眼压计进行眼压测量,然后根据测得的眼压高低分为高眼压、中眼压、低眼压3个组,对比分析3种眼压计的测量结果。结果:在全部受测者中Icare,GAT,DCT测得的眼压均值分别为19.16±5.03mmHg,18.41±4.52mmHg和17.23±3.69mmHg,每两种眼压计相比均有显著差别,但是彼此之间密切相关。高、中、低3个眼压组两种眼压计之间的差值均随着眼压的增高而增大。结论:使用Icare测量的眼压值准确可信,Icare,GAT和DCT的眼压值彼此之间具有良好的相关性。     

PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计临床应用的初步报告

目的:验证动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)的临床性能。方法:对81例143眼青光眼及可疑病例青光眼患者用DCT测量眼内压(IOP);132眼同时用Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)测量眼压,部分病例同时用NIDEKUP-1000型角膜测厚仪测量中央角膜厚度(CCT)。GAT与DCT测量结果采用配对t检验,GAT、DCT测量值与CCT的关系及DCT测量值与眼脉动振幅(OPA)的相关关系采用Spearman双变量相关分析。结果:①DCT和GAT测得的眼压均数分别为(18.6±3.9)mmHg和(17.4±4.1)mmHg;DCT测得的眼压值高于GAT,其差值均数为(1.1±2.3)mmHg;两种眼压计测得的眼压值呈正相关(r=0.83,P<0.01)。②116眼同时完成了DCT眼压测量及CCT测量,两者相关系数r=0.03,P=0.77;113眼同时完成了GAT眼压测量及CCT测量,两者相关系数r=0.28,P=0.003。③143眼同时记录了DCT眼压值和眼脉动振幅(OPA),其均数分别为(18.6±3.9)mmHg和(2.6±1.1)mmHg,两者的相关系数r=0.32,P<0.01。结论:以上结果初步证实:①DCT眼压计测量值与GAT眼压测量值高度相关,但DCT测量值略高于GAT测量值,提示DCT可用于临床诊断。②DCT测量值与CCT不相关,GAT测量值与CCT显著相关,提示DCT在青光眼诊断中有独特优势。③DCT测量的OPA与IOP值显著相关,相关的机制及临床意义有待探讨。     

Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the Pascal dynamic contour,Canon TX‐10 non‐contact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in healthy subjects

Purpose: To investigate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), Canon TX‐10 non‐contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements (GAT) in healthy subjects. Methods: IOP values of 135 eyes with normal corneas of 135 healthy volunteers were determined by DCT, NCT and by GAT. The CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter after all IOP determinations had been made. Results: When DCT measurements were compared (IOP = 17.52 ± 2.0 mmHg) with NCT measurements (IOP = 16.54 ± 2.77 mmHg) and GAT measurements (IOP = 15.07 ± 2.35 mmHg), DCT measurements were significantly higher than NCT and GAT (p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between CCT with both NCT (r = 0.260, p = 0.003) and GAT measurements (r = 0.257, p = 0.005). There was a weak correlation that was not statistically significant between CCT and DCT (r = 0.160, p = 0.079). Conclusion: The IOP measurements with DCT seem to be less dependent on CCT. NCT appears to be more affected by variation in CCT than GAT.     

Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken with Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), the TonoPen and the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements taken with Pascal DCT and the TonoPen was evaluated. METHODS: One eye in each of 101 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement and IOP evaluation with GAT, Pascal DCT and the TonoPen in random order. The agreement between results from Pascal DCT and the TonoPen and those of GAT was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The deviation of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from GAT values, corrected for CCT, was calculated and correlated to CCT using a linear regression model. RESULTS: The mean of the differences in IOP measurements was 3.2 +/- 2.4 mmHg for Pascal DCT minus GAT readings and 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg for TonoPen minus GAT readings. The 95% confidence interval of differences in IOP measurements was higher between TonoPen and GAT readings (- 6 to 7 mmHg) than between Pascal and GAT readings (0.1-6.8 mmHg). Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP compared with GAT, especially for higher IOP readings. Bland-Altman scatterplots showed reasonable inter-method agreement between Pascal DCT and GAT measurements, and poor agreement between TonoPen and GAT measurements. The deviations of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from the corrected GAT values were both highly correlated with CCT values (linear regression analysis, p < 0.0001). The mean change in measured IOP for a 10-microm increase in CCT was 0.48 mmHg for Pascal DCT and 0.74 mmHg for the TonoPen. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement with GAT measurements was higher for Pascal DCT than for TonoPen readings; however, Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP values compared with GAT. Measurements of IOP obtained with both Pascal DCT and the TonoPen appeared to be influenced by CCT, and this influence appeared to be greater for the latter.