Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure

To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Iranian journal of ophthalmology 2017-06, Vol.29 (2), p.92-97
Main Authors: Kouchaki, Behrooz, Hashemi, Hassan, Yekta, Abbasali, khabazkhoob, Mehdi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agreements
Biomechanics
Cornea
Dynamic contour tonometer
Glaucoma
Goldmann applanation tonometer
Intraocular pressure
Non-contact tonometer
Ocular response analyze
Original Research
Regression analysis
Sensors
Statistical analysis
Studies
Tonometry
Viscoelasticity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13
container_end_page 97
container_issue 2
container_start_page 92
container_title Iranian journal of ophthalmology
container_volume 29
creator Kouchaki, Behrooz
Hashemi, Hassan
Yekta, Abbasali
khabazkhoob, Mehdi
description To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In this cross-sectional study, volunteers with normal ophthalmic examination and no history of eye surgery (except for uncomplicated cataract surgery) or trauma were selected. Twenty-five subjects were male, and 21 were female. The mean age was 48 ± 19.2 years. Anterior segment parameters were measured with Scheimpflug imaging. IOP was measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA in random order. A 95% limit of agreement of IOPs was analyzed. The impact of different parameters on the measured IOP with each device was evaluated by regression analysis. The average IOP measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA was 16.4 ± 3.5, 18.1 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 3.9, and 17.3 ± 3.4 mmHg, respectively. The difference of IOP measured with NCT and GAT was not significant (P = 0.382). Intraocular pressure was significantly different between GAT with DCT and IOPCC (P 
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a163ee6d4bd0473ea84814ce8c18aeb9</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2452232516301159</els_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_a163ee6d4bd0473ea84814ce8c18aeb9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>1911201131</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk1r3DAQhk1paUKaP9BDMfTSy25Hn7ahFMrSj0CgFNqz0I7GiYwtbSU7kH8fuZuGpIeeNGieeZmPt6peM9gyYPr9sB0ixi0v8RbaLTB4Vp1yqfiGC66eP4pPqvOcB4BCKsYkvKxOeKu5bllzWv3Yxelgk88x1LGvcUmJwlzPMcSJ5nRbz4TXwf9eKNc-1BPZvCSaVqbgPszJRlxGm-pDorzmXlUvejtmOr9_z6pfXz7_3H3bXH7_erH7dLlBJbt5g8AduEahdnvd8561XHLRI3WcGtYooVSnEDUhNKIHJQAbcNg7K0oZMXFWXRx1XbSDOSQ_2XRrovXmz0dMV8am2eNIxjItiLSTeweyEWRb2TKJ1CJrLe27ovXxqHVY9hM5pHWu8Yno00zw1-Yq3hgltQAmi8C7e4EU113NZvIZaRxtoLhkwzrGyqmYWPt--w86xCWFsirDhRad7oBDofiRwhRzTtQ_NMPArAYwg1kNYFYDGGhNMUApevN4jIeSv-cuwIcjQOUwN56SyegpIDmfCOeyOf8__TuxvMMb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2363969020</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Kouchaki, Behrooz ; Hashemi, Hassan ; Yekta, Abbasali ; khabazkhoob, Mehdi</creator><creatorcontrib>Kouchaki, Behrooz ; Hashemi, Hassan ; Yekta, Abbasali ; khabazkhoob, Mehdi</creatorcontrib><description>To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In this cross-sectional study, volunteers with normal ophthalmic examination and no history of eye surgery (except for uncomplicated cataract surgery) or trauma were selected. Twenty-five subjects were male, and 21 were female. The mean age was 48 ± 19.2 years. Anterior segment parameters were measured with Scheimpflug imaging. IOP was measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA in random order. A 95% limit of agreement of IOPs was analyzed. The impact of different parameters on the measured IOP with each device was evaluated by regression analysis. The average IOP measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA was 16.4 ± 3.5, 18.1 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 3.9, and 17.3 ± 3.4 mmHg, respectively. The difference of IOP measured with NCT and GAT was not significant (P = 0.382). Intraocular pressure was significantly different between GAT with DCT and IOPCC (P &lt; 0.001 and P = 0.022, respectively). The 95% limit of agreement of DCT, NCT, and IOPCC with GAT was −5.7 to 2.5, −4.1 to 4.7, and −5.3–3.7 mmHg, respectively. Simple regression model corneal resistance factor (CRF) and central corneal thickness (CCT) and multivariate model CRF had a significant relationship with IOP measured with the four devices. Although the mean difference of measured IOP by NCT, DCT, and ORA with GAT was less than 2 mmHg, the limit of agreement was relatively large. CCT and CRF were important influencing factors in the four types of tonometers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2452-2325</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2452-2325</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28626817</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Biomechanics ; Cornea ; Dynamic contour tonometer ; Glaucoma ; Goldmann applanation tonometer ; Intraocular pressure ; Non-contact tonometer ; Ocular response analyze ; Original Research ; Regression analysis ; Sensors ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Tonometry ; Viscoelasticity</subject><ispartof>Iranian journal of ophthalmology, 2017-06, Vol.29 (2), p.92-97</ispartof><rights>2017 Iranian Society of Ophthalmology</rights><rights>2017. Iranian Society of Ophthalmology</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017, Iranian Society of Ophthalmology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. 2017 Iranian Society of Ophthalmology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463014/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452232516301159$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,3549,27924,27925,45780,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28626817$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kouchaki, Behrooz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hashemi, Hassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yekta, Abbasali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>khabazkhoob, Mehdi</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure</title><title>Iranian journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>J Curr Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In this cross-sectional study, volunteers with normal ophthalmic examination and no history of eye surgery (except for uncomplicated cataract surgery) or trauma were selected. Twenty-five subjects were male, and 21 were female. The mean age was 48 ± 19.2 years. Anterior segment parameters were measured with Scheimpflug imaging. IOP was measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA in random order. A 95% limit of agreement of IOPs was analyzed. The impact of different parameters on the measured IOP with each device was evaluated by regression analysis. The average IOP measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA was 16.4 ± 3.5, 18.1 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 3.9, and 17.3 ± 3.4 mmHg, respectively. The difference of IOP measured with NCT and GAT was not significant (P = 0.382). Intraocular pressure was significantly different between GAT with DCT and IOPCC (P &lt; 0.001 and P = 0.022, respectively). The 95% limit of agreement of DCT, NCT, and IOPCC with GAT was −5.7 to 2.5, −4.1 to 4.7, and −5.3–3.7 mmHg, respectively. Simple regression model corneal resistance factor (CRF) and central corneal thickness (CCT) and multivariate model CRF had a significant relationship with IOP measured with the four devices. Although the mean difference of measured IOP by NCT, DCT, and ORA with GAT was less than 2 mmHg, the limit of agreement was relatively large. CCT and CRF were important influencing factors in the four types of tonometers.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Cornea</subject><subject>Dynamic contour tonometer</subject><subject>Glaucoma</subject><subject>Goldmann applanation tonometer</subject><subject>Intraocular pressure</subject><subject>Non-contact tonometer</subject><subject>Ocular response analyze</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tonometry</subject><subject>Viscoelasticity</subject><issn>2452-2325</issn><issn>2452-2325</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk1r3DAQhk1paUKaP9BDMfTSy25Hn7ahFMrSj0CgFNqz0I7GiYwtbSU7kH8fuZuGpIeeNGieeZmPt6peM9gyYPr9sB0ixi0v8RbaLTB4Vp1yqfiGC66eP4pPqvOcB4BCKsYkvKxOeKu5bllzWv3Yxelgk88x1LGvcUmJwlzPMcSJ5nRbz4TXwf9eKNc-1BPZvCSaVqbgPszJRlxGm-pDorzmXlUvejtmOr9_z6pfXz7_3H3bXH7_erH7dLlBJbt5g8AduEahdnvd8561XHLRI3WcGtYooVSnEDUhNKIHJQAbcNg7K0oZMXFWXRx1XbSDOSQ_2XRrovXmz0dMV8am2eNIxjItiLSTeweyEWRb2TKJ1CJrLe27ovXxqHVY9hM5pHWu8Yno00zw1-Yq3hgltQAmi8C7e4EU113NZvIZaRxtoLhkwzrGyqmYWPt--w86xCWFsirDhRad7oBDofiRwhRzTtQ_NMPArAYwg1kNYFYDGGhNMUApevN4jIeSv-cuwIcjQOUwN56SyegpIDmfCOeyOf8__TuxvMMb</recordid><startdate>20170601</startdate><enddate>20170601</enddate><creator>Kouchaki, Behrooz</creator><creator>Hashemi, Hassan</creator><creator>Yekta, Abbasali</creator><creator>khabazkhoob, Mehdi</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CWDGH</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170601</creationdate><title>Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure</title><author>Kouchaki, Behrooz ; Hashemi, Hassan ; Yekta, Abbasali ; khabazkhoob, Mehdi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Cornea</topic><topic>Dynamic contour tonometer</topic><topic>Glaucoma</topic><topic>Goldmann applanation tonometer</topic><topic>Intraocular pressure</topic><topic>Non-contact tonometer</topic><topic>Ocular response analyze</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tonometry</topic><topic>Viscoelasticity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kouchaki, Behrooz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hashemi, Hassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yekta, Abbasali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>khabazkhoob, Mehdi</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Middle East &amp; Africa Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Iranian journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kouchaki, Behrooz</au><au>Hashemi, Hassan</au><au>Yekta, Abbasali</au><au>khabazkhoob, Mehdi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure</atitle><jtitle>Iranian journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>J Curr Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2017-06-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>92</spage><epage>97</epage><pages>92-97</pages><issn>2452-2325</issn><eissn>2452-2325</eissn><abstract>To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In this cross-sectional study, volunteers with normal ophthalmic examination and no history of eye surgery (except for uncomplicated cataract surgery) or trauma were selected. Twenty-five subjects were male, and 21 were female. The mean age was 48 ± 19.2 years. Anterior segment parameters were measured with Scheimpflug imaging. IOP was measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA in random order. A 95% limit of agreement of IOPs was analyzed. The impact of different parameters on the measured IOP with each device was evaluated by regression analysis. The average IOP measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA was 16.4 ± 3.5, 18.1 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 3.9, and 17.3 ± 3.4 mmHg, respectively. The difference of IOP measured with NCT and GAT was not significant (P = 0.382). Intraocular pressure was significantly different between GAT with DCT and IOPCC (P &lt; 0.001 and P = 0.022, respectively). The 95% limit of agreement of DCT, NCT, and IOPCC with GAT was −5.7 to 2.5, −4.1 to 4.7, and −5.3–3.7 mmHg, respectively. Simple regression model corneal resistance factor (CRF) and central corneal thickness (CCT) and multivariate model CRF had a significant relationship with IOP measured with the four devices. Although the mean difference of measured IOP by NCT, DCT, and ORA with GAT was less than 2 mmHg, the limit of agreement was relatively large. CCT and CRF were important influencing factors in the four types of tonometers.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>28626817</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2452-2325
ispartof Iranian journal of ophthalmology, 2017-06, Vol.29 (2), p.92-97
issn 2452-2325
2452-2325
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a163ee6d4bd0473ea84814ce8c18aeb9
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Agreements
Biomechanics
Cornea
Dynamic contour tonometer
Glaucoma
Goldmann applanation tonometer
Intraocular pressure
Non-contact tonometer
Ocular response analyze
Original Research
Regression analysis
Sensors
Statistical analysis
Studies
Tonometry
Viscoelasticity
title Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A26%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20current%20tonometry%20techniques%20in%20measurement%20of%20intraocular%20pressure&rft.jtitle=Iranian%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Kouchaki,%20Behrooz&rft.date=2017-06-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=92&rft.epage=97&rft.pages=92-97&rft.issn=2452-2325&rft.eissn=2452-2325&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E1911201131%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-c02d0d75c6db6f2f182423fce92e717535595cc6ec073f0530c70dcfda30d7e13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2363969020&rft_id=info:pmid/28626817&rfr_iscdi=true