4.4 Article

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

期刊

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 E392-E396

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aos.12109

关键词

glaucoma; Goldmann applanation tonometer; Icare rebound tonometer; intraocular pressure

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Korean government (MEST) [2012-0006066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of a new rebound tonometer, Icare((R)) 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: 1.92mmHg; SD: 3.29mmHg; 95% limit of agreement: -4.52 to 8.37mmHg) 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据