Repeatability and reproducibility of goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 127-132

  Wang, Allen Shawlun ^a,b   Alencar, Luciana M ^a,c   Weinreb, Robert N ^a   Tafreshi, Ali ^a   Deokule, Sunil ^a   Vizzeri, Gianmarco ^a   Medeiros, Felipe A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Dynamic contour tonometry; Goldmann applanation tonometry; Intraocular pressure; Ocular response analyzer; Repeatability; Reproducibility; Waveform score

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OCULAR RESPONSE ANALYZER; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PASCAL DYNAMIC CONTOUR TONOMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; EQUIPMENT; GONIOSCOPY; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; GONIOSCOPY; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84879438625     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182254ba3     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica. 1957;134:221-242.
2. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, et al. Corneal thicknessand age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:5337-5347.
3. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3118-3121.
4. 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.
5. Johannesson G, Hallberg P, Eklund A, et al. Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86:614-621.
6. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:344-350.
7. AG ZOS. Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometer. Brochure, 2006.
8. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156-162.
9. Luce DA. Methodology for Corneal Compensated IOP and Corneal Resistance Factor for an Ocular Response Analyzer. 2006;www.ocularresponseanalyzer.com/ downloads/Luce-2006-1.pdf.
10. 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.
11. Patel PJ, Chen FK, Ikeji F, et al. Repeatability of stratus optical coherence tomography measures in neovascular agerelated macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1084-1088.
12. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ. 1996;313:744.
13. Lu L, Shara NM. Reliability analysis: calculate and compare intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) in SAS. Northeast SAS Users Group, 2007.
14. Patton N, Aslam T, Murray G. Statistical strategies to assess reliability in ophthalmology. Eye (Lond). 2006;20:749-754.
15. Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:466-475.
16. Bradley E, Tibshirani RJ. Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1993.
17. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
18. Team RDC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.
19. Kotecha A, White E, Schlottmann PG, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:730-737.
20. Sullivan-Mee M, Gerhardt G, Halverson KD, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2009;18: 666-673.
21. 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.
22. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44: 367-408.
23. Vernon SA. Reproducibility with the Keeler Pulsair 2000 non-contact tonometer. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79:554-557.
24. Weinreb RN, Brandt JD, Garway-Heath D, et al. Intraocular Pressure: Measurement of Intraocular Pressure. World Glaucoma Association 4th Consensus Meeting. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 2007.
25. Taylor D. Reichert, Inc. Buffalo, NY, 2010.