Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 23;12(1):20190.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24318-y.

Comparison between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry correcting equations

Maddalena De Bernardo  1 , Claudia Casaburi  1 , Ilaria De Pascale  1 , Luigi Capasso  2 , Ferdinando Cione  3 , Nicola Rosa  1
Affiliations

Comparison between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry correcting equations

Maddalena De Bernardo et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

In order to investigate the reliability of correcting GAT formulas in comparison with dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), this study included 112 right eyes of 112 healthy subjects aged from 21 to 77 years, whose eyes underwent to a full ophthalmologic exam. IOP was measured in each eye with DCT and then with GAT. IOP values obtained with GAT were corrected with 10 equations and then compared with those provided by DCT. Participants mean age was 42.24 ± 14.08 years; mean IOP measured with DCT was 17.61 ± 2.87 and 15.50 ± 2.47 mmHg, measured with GAT. The mean discordance between DCT and GAT measurements was 2.11 ± 2.24 mmHg. All the correcting formulas, but Srodka one (p ˂ 0.001), tend to increase the difference between GAT and DCT. According to these results Śródka equation provides the best correction, reducing the difference between the two IOP measurement methods of - 0.03 ± 0.85 mmHg. Other equations do not provide a valid improvement of the agreement between the two methods or they provide a worsening of the agreement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT uncorrected. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (2.11 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.24 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Shimmyo formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (1.97 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.62 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with ShimmyoR formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (2.02 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.80 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Chihara formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (− 2.04 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.24 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Śródka formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (1.86 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.48 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Doughty formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (2.22 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.52 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Elsheikh2011 formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (3.13 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.36 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Kohlhaas formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (1.98 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.46 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Ehlers formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (4.13 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.95 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Elsheikh2009 formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (4.27 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.65 mmHg) of the differences.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Bland–Altman plot between IOP measured with DCT and GAT corrected with Foster formula. Dashed line: mean difference. Dash-dotted lines: mean difference (− 4.63 mmHg) ± 2 standard deviation (2.30 mmHg) of the differences.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. De Bernardo M, Rosa N. Fuchs’ endothelial and myotonic dystrophies: Corneal dystrophy in myotonic patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(13):5838. doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-23171. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Markiewitz HH. The so called Imbert-Fick law. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1960;64:159. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1960.01840010161018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gloster J, Perkins ES. The validity of the Imbert-Fick law as applied to applanation tonomery. Exp. Eye Res. 1963;44:274–283. doi: 10.1016/S0014-4835(63)80048-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whitacre MC, Stein R. Sources of error of Goldmann type tonometers. Surv. Ophthalmol. 1993;38(1):1–30. doi: 10.1016/0039-6257(93)90053-A. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Bernardo M, Capasso L, Caliendo L, Paolercio F, Rosa N. IOL power calculation after corneal refractive surgery. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014;2014:658350. doi: 10.1155/2014/658350. - DOI - PMC - PubMed