Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
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 European Journal of ...arrow_drop_down
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
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
versions View all 4 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.

Comparing Applanation Tonometry and Rebound Tonometry in Glaucomatous and Ocular Hypertensive Eyes

Authors: Marini M.; da Pozzo S.; ACCARDO, AGOSTINO; Canziani T.;

Comparing Applanation Tonometry and Rebound Tonometry in Glaucomatous and Ocular Hypertensive Eyes

Abstract

Purpose TO describe Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and rebound tonometer (RT) agreement in measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucomatous and ocular hypertensive (OH) eyes and to evaluate central corneal thickness (CCT) influence on RT readings. Methods A total of 347 eyes were enrolled and IOP measured between 9 and 11 am. Rebound tonometry was performed first (RT1), followed by 3 consecutive GAT measurements and by a second RT reading (RT2), within a 5-minute span. Mean IOP (±SD) values were compared by means of paired t-test. Agreement between GAT and RT1 (test 1) and RT2 (test 2) was evaluated with Bland-Altman method, whereas a linear function described the relationship between CCT and IOP taken with RT. Results Mean IOP (±SD) taken with RT1, GAT, and RT2 was 18.1±4.3, 15.6±3.3, and 16.3±3.9 mmHg, respectively. Readings were within ±3 mmHg in 63.7% and 86.7% of eyes for test 1 and 2, respectively. A significant (p<0.001) proportional bias was noted on both tests (95% limits of agreement: −2.3/7.4 and −3.6/5.0 mmHg for test 1 and 2, respectively). Agreement between instruments decreased for increasing IOP. Rebound tonometry readings increased by 4.6 and 4.1 mmHg for RT1 and RT2, respectively, for each 100–μm CCT increase. Conclusions When used first, RT significantly overestimated IOP compared with GAT. Differences became clinically negligible when RT was used immediately after GAT. Repeated applanation tonometry may explain this observation. Agreement between instruments was acceptable for low IOP, but worsened with increasing IOP values. RT is significantly influenced by CCT. Goldmann applanation tonometer and RT should not be used interchangeably.

Country
Italy
Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, hypertension, Reproducibility of Results, Glaucoma, Middle Aged, eye, Cornea, applanation tonometry; rebound tonometry; glaucoma; eye; hypertension, Tonometry, Ocular, glaucoma, applanation tonometry, Humans, rebound tonometry, Female, Ocular Hypertension, Intraocular Pressure, Aged

  • 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).
    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.
    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).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
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!
16
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author? Do you have the OA version of this publication?