Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 97, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1410-1414

  Reznicek, Lukas ^a   Muth, Daniel ^a   Kampik, Anselm ^a   Neubauer, Aljoscha S ^a   Hirneiss, Christoph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYZER; ARTICLE; CENTRAL CORNEAL THICKNESS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEAL PACHYMETRY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOOCULOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; HUMPHREY VISUAL FIELD ANALYZER; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON CONTACT TONOMETER; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PACHYMETER; PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; TONOMETRY;

GLAUCOMA; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE;

CORNEA; CORNEAL PACHYMETRY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 84888585601     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: 14682079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303400     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:262-7. (Pubitemid 43325451)
2. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Niziol LM, et al. Factors associated with intraocular pressure before and during 9 years of treatment in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:927-33. (Pubitemid 351749685)
3. Leske MC, Wu SY, Hennis A, et al. Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology 2008;115:85-93. (Pubitemid 350309410)
4. Leske MC, Wu SY, Nemesure B, et al. Incident open-angle glaucoma and blood pressure. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:954-9. (Pubitemid 34755549)
5. 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. (Pubitemid 30151145)
6. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 2006;15:364-70. (Pubitemid 44434988)
7. Kwon TH, Ghaboussi J, Pecknold DA, et al. Role of corneal biomechanical properties in applanation tonometry measurements. J Refract Surg 2010;26:512-9.
8. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:146-55. (Pubitemid 40260702)
9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. (Pubitemid 8054849)
10. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-8.
11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995;346:1085-7.
12. Yu AY, Duan SF, Zhao YE, et al. Correlation between corneal biomechanical properties, applanation tonometry and direct intracameral tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:640-4.
13. Altan C, Kara N, Baz O, et al. Corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure measurement in patients with nanophthalmos. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:806-10.
14. Renier C, Zeyen T, Fieuws S, et al. Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Int Ophthalmol 2010;30:651-9.
15. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:156-62. (Pubitemid 40260703)
16. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:3118-21. (Pubitemid 39121844)
17. Ito K, Tawara A, Kubota T, et al. IOP measured by dynamic contour tonometry correlates with IOP measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry in Japanese individuals. J Glaucoma 2012;21:35-40.
18. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, et al. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4578-80. (Pubitemid 44264556)
19. Chou CY, Jordan CA, McGhee CN, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurement using 4 different instruments following penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153:412-8.
20. Vincent SJ, Vincent RA, Shields D, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurement between rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in treated glaucoma patients. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2012;40:e163-70.
21. Kim NR, Kim CY, Kim H, et al. Comparison of goldmann applanation tonometer, noncontact tonometer, and TonoPen XL for intraocular pressure measurement in different types of glaucomatous, ocular hypertensive, and normal eyes. Curr Eye Res 2011;36:295-300.
22. Neuburger M, Rosentreter A, Dietlein TS, et al. [Techniques of intraocular pressure measurement]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2011;228:118-24.
23. ISO. ISO 8612:2009: Ophthalmic Instruments - Tonometers. 2009.
24. Johannesson G, Hallberg P, Eklund A, et al. Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry - a comparative study. Acta Ophthalmol 2008;86:614-21.
25. Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, et al. A new tonometer - the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:659-65.
26. Lau W, Pye D. Changes in corneal biomechanics and applanation tonometry with induced corneal swelling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:3207-14.