
doi: 10.1139/i06-065 , 10.3129/i06-065
pmid: 17224953
To compare intraocular pressures obtained using a handheld pressure phosphene tonometer (PPT) (Proview, Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tampa, Fla.) with Goldmann applanation tonometry.Comparative case series of 30 randomly selected patients.The readings obtained with the pressure phosphene tonometer display a higher mean and a larger standard deviation than those obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Differences between PPT and GAT readings tended to decrease as a function of increased Goldmann levels. The relation of Proview and Goldmann readings (r = 0.32) and the scatterplot were not consistent with the hypothesis that the 2 methods are equivalent.Our results indicate that the pressure phosphene-type handheld tonometry method, which does not appear to provide an accurate and consistent measure of intraocular pressure, is substantially less reliable than the Goldmann method.
Adult, Male, Tonometry, Ocular, Phosphenes, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Female, Glaucoma, Middle Aged, Intraocular Pressure, Aged
Adult, Male, Tonometry, Ocular, Phosphenes, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Female, Glaucoma, Middle Aged, Intraocular Pressure, Aged
| 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). | 10 | |
| 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 |
