
pmid: 7325201
Recently, there have been several suggestions that Goldmann applanation tonometry can be performed without fluorescein. In order to determine the clinical efficacy of performing Goldmann applanation tonometry without fluorescein, 100 consecutive patients had applanation tonometry performed without fluorescein (Ophthetic only) and with fluorescein (Fluress), according to a predetermined randomization schedule. It was found that the average difference between readings with fluorescein and without fluorescein was 7.01 mm Hg. Tonometry readings without fluorescein were lower than readings with fluorescein. In addition, regression analysis indicated that the differences between the readings with and without fluorescein increased as intraocular pressure increased. By not utilizing fluorescein in Goldmann applanation tonometry, the clinician will record lower readings. In addition, greater errors in measurement occur with increasing intraocular pressures. Because eyes with higher intraocular pressures are at a greater risk to develop glaucomatous optic atrophy and loss of visual field, the merits of Goldmann applanation tonometry without fluorescein are speculative.
Random Allocation, Tonometry, Ocular, Humans, Glaucoma, Fluoresceins, Intraocular Pressure
Random Allocation, Tonometry, Ocular, Humans, Glaucoma, Fluoresceins, Intraocular Pressure
| 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). | 16 | |
| 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. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
