Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 666-673

  Sullivan Mee, Michael ^a   Gerhardt, Gretchen ^a   Halverson, Kathy D ^a   Qualls, Clifford ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Goldmann applanation tonometry; Intraocular pressure; Ocular response analyzer tonometry; Pascal dynamic contour tonometry; Repeatability; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EYE; EYE EXAMINATION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETRY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PASCAL DYNAMIC CONTOUR TONOMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 74549215576     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31819c487d     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:344-350
2. Punjabi OS, Kniestedt C, Stamper RL, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry: principle and use. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006;34:837-840
3. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156-162
4. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, et al. Corneal thickness and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:5337-5347
5. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146-155
6. Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, et al. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:39-47
7. Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai M, et al, for Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry, and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:20-26
8. Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Gordon MO, et al, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) Group. Central corneal thickness and measured IOP response to topical ocular hypertensive medication in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:717-722
9. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:359-366
10. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al. Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1532-1537
11. Doyle A, Lachkar Y. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005;14: 288-292
12. Broman AT, Congdon NG, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness, and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:581-588
13. Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R, et al. Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:909-914
14. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:364-370
15. Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 140:318-320
16. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurementcomparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:2-6
17. Boehm AG, Weber A, Spoerl E, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2472-2477
18. Sullivan-Mee M, Billingsley SC, Patel AD, et al. Ocular response analyzers in subjects with and without glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:463-470
19. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M, Lanigan B. Corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure measurement in children using the Reichert ocular response analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142: 990-992
20. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al. Correlation between intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, stage of glaucoma, and demographic patient data. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:91-97
21. Wells AP, Garway-Heath DF, Poostchi A, et al. Corneal hysteresis but not corneal thickness correlates with optic nerve surface compliance in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3262-3268
22. Sullivan-Mee M, Halverson KD, Qualls C. Clinical comparison of Pascals dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in asymmetric open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:694-699
23. Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:868-875
24. Bochmann F, Ang GS, Azuara-Blanco A. Lower corneal hysteresis in glaucoma patients with acquired pit of the optic nerve (APON). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246: 735-738
25. Moreno-Montanes J, Maldonado MJ, Garcia N, et al. Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49: 968-974
26. Kotecha A, White ET, Shewry JM, et al. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89:1572-1575
27. Herdener S, Hafizovic D, Pache M, et al. Is the Pascal- Tonometer suitable for measuring intraocular pressure in clinical routine? Long and short-term reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18:39-43
28. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3118-3121
29. Tonnu PA, Ho T, Sharma K, et al. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:847-850
30. Recep OF, Hasiripi H, Vayisoglu E, et al. Accurate time interval in repeated tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76:603-605
31. Bland JM, Altman DG.Measurement error. BMJ. 1996;313:744
32. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310
33. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255-268
34. Lin LI. A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics. 2000;56:324-325
35. Cheng NF, Gansky SA. A SAS macro to compute Lin's concordance correlation with confidence intervals. UCSF CAN-DO website. Accessed on 4/9/2008. [http://www.ucsf. edu/cando/resources/software/linscon.sas]
36. Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, et al. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiologic studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:141-144
37. Shields MB. The non-contact tonometer: its value and limitations. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24:211-219