Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer
- PMID: 20499265
- DOI: 10.1007/s10792-010-9377-9
Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT (P < 0.01). Only the ORAcc and DCT were comparable. ORAcc and DCT significantly over-estimated IOP compared to GAT and for ORAcc this difference depended on the height of IOP. A significant correlation was found between CCT and the deviation of DCT and ORAcc from corrected GAT (both P < 0.0001). Our study showed a low degree of agreement between IOP measured by ORA, DCT and GAT. DCT and ORAcc over-estimated the IOP compared to GAT.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009 Sep-Oct;19(5):783-9. doi: 10.1177/112067210901900516. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID: 19787598 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009 Nov-Dec;19(6):936-41. doi: 10.1177/112067210901900607. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID: 19882585
-
Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers.Ophthalmology. 2010 Apr;117(4):730-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.020. Epub 2010 Feb 1. Ophthalmology. 2010. PMID: 20122737 Clinical Trial.
-
Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes.J Glaucoma. 2008 Aug;17(5):361-5. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31815c3ad3. J Glaucoma. 2008. PMID: 18703945
-
Factors influencing intermethod agreement between goldmann applanation, pascal dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry.J Glaucoma. 2013 Aug;22(6):487-95. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824cd08d. J Glaucoma. 2013. PMID: 22407388
Cited by
-
Tonographic Effect of Ocular Response Analyzer in Comparison to Goldmann Applanation Tonometry.PLoS One. 2017 Jan 9;12(1):e0169438. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169438. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28068365 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with ocular parameters in a large central European cohort: the Gutenberg health study.PLoS One. 2013 Aug 1;8(8):e66158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066158. Print 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23936291 Free PMC article.
-
Intraocular pressure measurement by three different tonometers in primary congenital glaucoma.J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015 Jan-Mar;10(1):43-8. doi: 10.4103/2008-322X.156105. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015. PMID: 26005552 Free PMC article.
-
Telehealth and Screening Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of Glaucoma.J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 4;10(16):3452. doi: 10.3390/jcm10163452. J Clin Med. 2021. PMID: 34441748 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Intraocular Pressure Based on Dynamic Bidirectional Applanation and Air-puff Tonometry: A Comparative Study.J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2019 May-Aug;13(2):68-73. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1251. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2019. PMID: 31564796 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources