Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Eyearrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Eye
Article
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Eye
Article . 2006 . Peer-reviewed
License: Springer TDM
Data sources: Crossref
Eye
Article . 2007
Eye
Article
HKU Scholars Hub
Article . 2010
Data sources: HKU Scholars Hub
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Comparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readings

Authors: Wong, D; Baddon, ACJ; Quah, SA; Batterbury, M; Osborne, SF;

Comparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readings

Abstract

To test the agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with Luneau SA applanators and Goldmann applanator.A single-blind crossover trial. IOPs were measured in both eyes of subjects with both applanators. Type of applanator was alternated to eliminate systematic bias. Multiple observers were used. Observers were blind to the scale while performing measurements but not to the type of applanator used. The appearance of the meniscus was assessed semiquantitatively. All measurements were combined and presented in a Bland-Altman plot.A total of 140 eyes of 79 subjects were tested by seven observers. The range of measurements was 6-45 mmHg (mean 17.8 mmHg) for the Goldmann applanator. On average, the Luneau SA applanator (range of measurements 4-36 mmHg) gave a measurement of 2.35 mmHg less than the Goldmann standard. The standard deviation of these differences was 2.13 mmHg, giving an upper 95% confidence limit of 6.53 mmHg and a lower 95% confidence limit of -1.83 mmHg. The measurements agreed in only 24 out of 140 instances. In 28 eyes, the disposable tonometer end point was difficult to assess owing to excessively thick rings. Linear extrapolation suggests an increase in difference with increasing IOP.The inter-head inaccuracy, tendency to underestimate IOP, and lack of systematic inaccuracy make a corrective algorithm impossible to formulate. The range of variation between the Luneau SA disposable applanator and the Goldmann standard is sufficiently large to influence clinical management decisions. We speculate that one explanation is the interaction of the tonometer with the tear film, making end point determination difficult. Further research is being undertaken.

Keywords

Tonometry, Ocular, Cross-Over Studies, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Single-Blind Method, Ocular - instrumentation - standards, Disposable Equipment, Intraocular Pressure, Tonometry, Tonometry, Ocular - instrumentation - standards

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    7
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
7
Average
Average
Average
bronze