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.     

Repeatability and accuracy of applanation resonance tonometry in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma

Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability and accuracy of the applanation resonance tonometer (ART) used in the automatic servo‐controlled version, and to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the ART intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements. Methods: This prospective, randomized, single‐centre study included one eye of 153 subjects (35 healthy volunteers and 118 patients with glaucoma). All participants underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement, followed by IOP evaluation with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and ART in random order. A single operator measured the IOP with each tonometer three times. Intra‐examiner variability was evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and test–retest differences. Intermethod agreement was assessed using the Bland–Altman method. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between IOP measurements and CCT. Results: The mean IOP was 17.7 ± 4.4 mmHg with GAT and 20.6 ± 5.3 mmHg with ART (p < 0.001). CoV and ICC were, respectively, 5 ± 3% and 0.99 for GAT, and 8 ± 4% and 0.96 for ART (intermethods differences, p = 0.001). The ART test–retest differences significantly increased with increasing mean IOP (p = 0.003). The mean IOP difference (ART minus GAT) was 3.0 ± 4.0 mmHg, which increased with increasing mean IOP (p < 0.001). Both GAT IOP and ART IOP readings were significantly directly related to the CCT values (p = 0.03 and p = 0.004, respectively; intermethods difference, p = 0.32). Conclusions: The ART intra‐examiner repeatability was excellent, although significantly lower than that of GAT, and decreased at higher IOP levels. ART significantly overestimated GAT IOP measurements, especially at higher IOP range. Both GAT and ART appeared similarly influenced by CCT value.     

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.     

Evaluation of the Icare-ONE rebound tonometer as a self-measuring intraocular pressure device in normal subjects

Purpose

To compare Icare ONE rebound self-tonometer (ICRBT) measurements with Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT).

Methods

A trained examiner instructed each of 60 normal subjects on use of the ICRBT. Each subject then took two measurements of his/her own pressure using the ICRBT. Finally, a different examiner, who was masked to the earlier readings, measured IOP by GAT. Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LOA), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kappa values, and paired t-test were used to assess the agreement between the two methods. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used for correlation analysis.

Results

All of the subjects were able to obtain correct measurements with ICRBT after three attempts. The mean intraocular pressure with ICRBT and GAT measurements were 16.0?±?3.3?mmHg and 13.7?±?2.5?mmHg respectively. The mean difference between patient’s ICRBT and technician’s GAT measurements was 2.3?mmHg (p?p?r?=?0.48, p?r?=?0.31, p?=?0.015), indicating that greater thickness is associated with greater differences between the two methods.

Conclusion

The ICRBT was reliable in the hands of normal subjects, and may be used for self-monitoring of IOP. ICRBT measurements generally overestimated GAT measurements.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

国产回弹式眼压计在儿童眼压测量中的应用

目的：观察国产回弹式眼压计在儿童眼压监测中的应用。方法：对本院眼视光门诊就诊的108例儿童进行两眼眼压测量,年龄大于13岁的儿童回弹式眼压计（ rebound tonometer,RBT）测量完成后左眼进行Goldmann压平式眼压计（ Goldmann applanation tonometry,GAT）眼压测量。 结果：两眼均顺利完成RBT眼压测量的儿童100例,成功率92.6%（100/108）,其中13岁以上24例。24例左眼RBT和GAT眼压平均值分别为16.0±3.0 mmHg （1 kPa=7.5mmHg）和15.7±2.8mmHg,两者差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,两者具有良好的相关性（r=0.849,P〈0.05）。100例儿童的左右眼眼压均呈正态分布,平均值分别为16.0±2.8mmHg和16.2±2.6mmHg,两者差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,两者具有良好的相关性（r=0.863,P〈0.05）。 结论：国产回弹式眼压计在儿童眼压测量中简单易操作,无需麻醉,准确性较高,能够较好满足临床儿童眼压测量的需求。     

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.     

Changes in intraocular pressure after intraocular eye surgery—the influence of measuring technique

AIM: To investigate the changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after intraocular surgery measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and pascal dynamic contour tonometry (PDCT), and assessed their agreement. METHODS: Patients who underwent trans pars plana vitrectomy (TPPV) with or without cataract extraction (CE) were included. The IOP was measured in both eyes with GAT and PDCT pre- and postoperatively, where the non-operated eyes functioned as control. RESULTS: Preoperatively, mean IOP measurements were 16.3±6.0 mm Hg for GAT and 12.0±2.8 mm Hg for PDCT for the operated eyes. Postoperatively, the mean IOP dropped to 14.3±5.6 mm Hg for GAT (P=0.011) and rose up to 12.7±2.6 mm Hg for PDCT (P=0.257). Bland-Altman analysis showed a poor agreement between GAT and PDCT with a mean difference of 2.9 mm Hg preoperatively and 95% limits of agreement ranging from -3.2 to 9.0 mm Hg. Postoperatively, the mean difference was 1.2 mm Hg with 95% limits of agreement ranging from -8.3 to 10.7 mm Hg. There were no significant differences between the TPPV and TPPV+CE group, except when measured with PDCT postoperatively (P=0.012). CONCLUSION: The IOP is reduced after surgery when measured with GAT and remained stable when measured with PDCT. However, the agreement between GAT and PDCT is poor. Although PDCT may be a more accurate predictor of the true IOP, it seems less suitable for daily use in the clinical practice.     

iCare回弹式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量结果的比较

目的对比iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）与Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量眼压的一致性,评价RBT测量眼压的准确性及安全性。方法研究为诊断性试验评价。分别用2种眼压计测量角膜正常的患者52例104眼,其中男28例,女24例;年龄19～76岁,以GAT眼压值作为基准分为5组：≤10mmHg、11～20mmHg、21～30mmHg、31～40mmHg、≥41mmHg组。评估2种测量方法的眼压值差值及其与眼压的关系。对RBT眼压值随GAT眼压值变化的关系进行评价。结果 RBT测得的眼压读数为（17.20±9.13）mmHg,GAT测得的眼压读数为（17.13±8.94）mmHg,二者差异无统计学意义（t=0.260,P=0.795）。60.58%的患者2种方法测得的眼压差值在1mmHg以内。5个组中,GAT眼压与RBT眼压的绝对差值随着眼压读数的增高而加大,最大值在≥41mmHg组,二者的最大绝对差值〈4mmHg。RBT眼压读数随着GAT眼压读数的改变而变化,二者的变化呈现良好的相关性（r=0.917,P〈0.01）,但与GAT测量法比较,RBT测得的眼压值均稍高。当GAT眼压值〉21mmHg时,RBT测量的敏感度和特异度分别为95.5%和98.8%。RBT测量后25%的患者主诉有异物感和眼干。结论 iCareRBT测量眼压具有良好的耐受性和安全性,与GAT测量眼压具有较好的相关性,适用于临床。     

Comparison of the ICare® rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) using a new induction/impact rebound tonometer (ICare) in comparison with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (AT). The left eyes of 46 university students were assessed with the two tonometers, with induction tonometry being performed first. The ICare was handled by an optometrist and the Goldmann tonometer by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the ICare rebound tonometer with applanation tonometry (AT) (p < 0.05). The mean difference between the two tonometers was 1.34 +/- 2.03 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.) and the 95% limits of agreement were +/-3.98 mmHg. A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <3 mmHg between the ICare and the AT. In the present population the ICare overestimates the IOP value by 1.34 mmHg on average when compared with Goldmann tonometer. Nevertheless, the ICare tonometer may be helpful as a screening tool when Goldmann applanation tonometry is not applicable or not recommended, as it is able to estimate IOP within a range of +/-3.00 mmHg in more than 80% of the population.     

The validity of a digital eyelid tonometer (TGDc-01) and its comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry – a pilot study

PURPOSE: To determine the intra- and inter-examiner repeatability of a new eyelid tonometer, and its agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty normal subjects were recruited and their intraocular pressure was measured by two examiners using the eyelid tonometer. Examiner 1 carried out the first set of measurement, followed by examiner 2, and then examiner 1 again. Finally, a third examiner was responsible for GAT measurement. Five readings were obtained from the eyelid tonometer by each examiner each time and were masked, and three readings were obtained from GAT. The mean readings from the eyelid tonometer and GAT were used for analysis. RESULTS: The intra-examiner repeatability for the eyelid tonometer was better (around +/-5 mmHg 95% of the cases) than the inter-examiner repeatability (around +/-8 mmHg 95% of the cases). The mean difference between the eyelid tonometer and GAT was small from examiner 1 (<0.5 mmHg). However, the limits of agreement were greater than the clinically acceptable level of +/-3 mmHg. Examiner 2 gave an even greater difference from GAT. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other recent studies, we have found that this eyelid tonometer does not provide good agreement with GAT. Different examiners could position the instrument differently and this eyelid tonometer is suggested for screening purposes only.     

Intraocular pressure measurement in patients with previous LASIK surgery using pressure phosphene tonometer

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) assessment in post-LASIK patients using non-contact tonometry, pressure phosphene tonometry and applanation tonometry. METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive LASIK patients were analysed preoperatively and postoperatively with non-contact, pressure phosphene and applanation tonometry. Comparisons among these values were assessed with paired sample Student t-test, Pearson's correlation test and Bland-Altman plotting. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for preoperative IOP measurement between non-contact, pressure phosphene and applanation tonometry. The mean +/-SD difference between the preoperative non-contact tonometry and postoperative pressure phosphene tonometry IOP measurements was 0.80 +/- 2.77 mmHg (P < 0.01). Postoperative applanation tonometry significantly underestimated IOP measurement by 5.45 +/- 2.96 mmHg (P < 0.001) and postoperative non-contact tonometry significantly underestimated IOP measurement by 9.96 +/- 2.25 mmHg (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pressure phosphene tonometry may provide an alternative method for the assessment of IOP in post-LASIK patients.     

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.     

Poor utility of intraocular pressure correction formulae in individual glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients

Background: To compare Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) readings after adjustment with correction formulae in a population of Caucasian glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Design: Retrospective cross‐sectional case series in a specialist glaucoma practice. Participants: Consecutive glaucoma and glaucoma suspect Caucasian patients. Methods: Case notes review of the GAT and DCT intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements from patients who presented on a non‐acute basis over a 30‐month period. The GAT measurement was adjusted with six different correction formulae. Agreement between GAT IOP, adjusted GAT IOP and DCT IOP was evaluated with the Bland‐Altman analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Agreement between GAT IOP (both unadjusted and adjusted) and DCT IOP. Results: Data from 200 patients with a mean age of 58.4 (±12.7) years were analysed. The mean central corneal thickness was 554.8 (±36.9) µm and the mean corneal hysteresis was 9.8 (±1.9) mm Hg. Sixty five (32.5%) had confirmed glaucomatous optic neuropathy. GAT IOP demonstrated poor agreement with DCT IOP. GAT IOP was on average 2.1 mm Hg less than DCT IOP. None of the six correction formulae resulted in improved agreement with DCT IOP. General linear model analysis found no statistically significant measurement differences between the glaucoma and glaucoma suspect groups. Conclusions: GAT demonstrated poor agreement with DCT, and agreement did not improve after adjustment with correction formulae. Our results suggest that correction formulae for GAT IOP are unsuitable to clinically approximate ‘true’ IOP in Caucasian glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients.     

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

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between ICare 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 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 相似文献   

Assessment of IcareONE rebound tonometer for self‐measuring intraocular pressure

Purpose: To evaluate the precision of the IcareONE rebound tonometer, which was developed for self‐measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) and to compare IcareONE measurement with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods: Twenty‐four healthy eyes and 81 glaucomatous eyes were enrolled. IOP measurements (three times per session) with IcareONE were made in a random order by an ophthalmologist (Icare(O)) and by the subject (Icare(S)). Intraclass correlation coefficients (CCs), kappa values and mean values of IOP were compared among the two types of Icare recordings and GAT. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess agreement between methods. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the subject factors that influenced the discordant measurements between IcareONE and GAT. Results: The mean value of Icare(O) and Icare(S) measurements was 13.5 ± 5.2 and 13.5 ± 5.4 mmHg, respectively, neither of which was significantly different from GAT (13.8 ± 4.4). The intrarater CC of Icare(O) and Icare(S) was 0.968 and 0.885, respectively. The intermethod CC and weighted kappa between Icare(O) and Icare(S) were 0.907 and 0.684, respectively. All pairwise correlations between the two types of IOP measurement showed coefficients of determination >0.8. Bland–Altman analysis did not show any proportional biases. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the differences between GAT and Icare(O) or Icare(S) were positively correlated with central corneal thickness (CCT) and negatively correlated with age. Conclusions: Intraocular pressure measurements with IcareONE by a physician and by the subject showed excellent agreement with GAT measurements; IcareONE measurements between a physician and the subject had high intrarater reliability, and good agreement thicker CCT led IcareONE measurement to overestimate IOP, while higher age caused it to underestimate IOP compared with GAT.     

iCare回弹式眼压计测量的重复性及与Goldmann压平式眼压计测量值间的一致性研究

背景Goldmann压平式眼压计（GAT）是眼压测量的金标准,但由于操作复杂且需要良好配合而影响其临床应用。iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）是一种新型的压平式眼压计,但需进行充分的临床应用评价。目的对iCareRBT检查者间及检查者内测量的可重复性及iCareRBT与GAT测量值间的一致性进行研究。方法2位操作者使用iCareRBT对36例青光眼及可疑青光眼患者双眼各测量1次,分别记录读数,对iCareRBT检查者间的重复性进行评价。2位操作者使用iCareRBT分别测量56例青光眼和52例青光眼患者,并对可疑青光眼患者的双眼进行测量,并记录眼压读数,对iCareRBT检查者内的重复性进行评价。检查者2对青光眼及可疑青光眼患者92例182眼先使用iCareRBT进行测量,然后检查者1使用Goldmann压平式眼压计进行测量,对iCareRBT和GAT的测量值进行一致性检验,并评价iCareRBT测量眼压的安全性。结果iCareRBT检查者间眼压测量值相关因子r右眼为0．937,左眼为0．887;检查者1对右眼和左眼重复测量眼压值的r值分别为0．986、0．969,检查者2所测右眼和左眼的r值分别为0．990、0．979;iCareRBT测量值与CAT测量值的均值分别为（18．74±8．36）mmHg、（19．33±8．20）mmHg,二者差值为（-0．59±2．60）mmHg,95％CI为（-5．80～4．60）,2种测量法相关因子r为0．951。所有受试者对iCareRBT的测量无不适反应。结论iCareRBT具有检查者间和检查者内的高度可重复性及很好的耐受性,iCareRBT测量值与GAT测量值间具有高度相关性。     

The effect of contact lens-induced corneal edema on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry

Purpose  To evaluate the effect of contact lens-induced corneal edema on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in Asian subjects. Participants  The study included 40 eyes of 20 normal volunteers with no evidence of ocular disease. Methods  Forty eyes of 20 healthy volunteers were required to wear soft contact lenses for 2 hours to induce corneal swelling. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP were measured before and immediately after contact lens wear using specular microscope, GAT, and DCT. The IOP measurements by GAT and DCT were compared. The changes in the CCT and the IOP measurements after wearing contact lenses were assessed. Results  The mean CCT of the 40 eyes evaluated was 532.6 ± 31.6 μm. The mean IOP was 11.78 ± 2.04 mmHg for the GAT and 14.46 ± 1.89 mmHg for the DCT, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). After wearing contact lenses, the mean CCT was 553.2 ± 34.3 μm, which was 20.6 ± 12.9 μm greater than before wearing them (P < 0.001). The mean IOP measurements of the GAT and DCT were decreased after wearing the contact lenses. The mean decrease of the GAT values was 0.43 ± 1.95 mmHg, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.175). However, the mean decrease of the DCT readings, which was 0.75 ± 1.74 mm Hg, was statistically significant (P = 0.010). Conclusion  The IOP measurements with DCT were significantly higher than those with GAT in healthy Asian eyes. Although the mean IOP measurements of both the GAT and the DCT were decreased in the edematous cornea, IOP measurements of the DCT were more affected by corneal edema than were the GAT. The authors have no proprietary, commercial, or financial interests in any of the products described in this study.