Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
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.

[Relevance of ocular pressure tonometry and classical tonometry with reference to prognosis in suspected glaucoma and ocular hypertension].

Authors: W, Wetzel; M, Geck; G, Duncker; H, Bernsmeier;

[Relevance of ocular pressure tonometry and classical tonometry with reference to prognosis in suspected glaucoma and ocular hypertension].

Abstract

A total of 44 eyes of patients with suspected glaucoma or ocular hypertension were examined both by ocular pressure tonometry (OPT) according to Ulrich and by tonography according to Leydhecker. The visual fields of these eyes were prospectively followed up for 3 years to compare the prognostic value of the two methods. In 30 of the 44 eyes a worsening visual field loss was observed, while in 14 the visual fields showed no change. Much better correlation was noted between values obtained by OPT and changes in visual field than between values obtained by tonography and visual field loss. Conventional tonography yielded 39% of false-negative values, but only 11% were recorded with OPT. Therefore, according to results of these and further investigations, OPT appears to be a more helpful and reliable method for assessment and decisions on therapy in patients with suspected glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Tonometry, Ocular, Reference Values, Humans, Visual Field Tests, Ocular Hypertension, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Prospective Studies, Visual Fields, Prognosis, Intraocular Pressure

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    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).
    0
    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
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
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!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!