Clinical Evaluation of the New Rebound Tonometers Icare PRO and Icare ONE Compared with the Goldmann Tonometer

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 527-532

  Moreno Montañés, Javier ^a   Martínez De La Casa, José M ^b,c   Sabater, Alfonso L ^a   Morales Fernandez, Laura ^b,c   Saénz, Cristina ^a   Garcia Feijoo, Julián ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY CLINIC OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

autotonometry; glaucoma; Goldmann tonometer; Icare tonometer; intraocular pressure; rebound tonometer

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DEVICE COMPARISON; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETER; HUMAN; ICARE ONE REBOUND TONOMETER; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE MEASURING DEVICE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TONOMETER; TONOMETRY; VERY ELDERLY; CORNEAL PACHYMETRY; DEVICES; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; CORNEAL PACHYMETRY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942190768     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000058     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Day AC, Baio G, Gazzard G, et al. The prevalence of primary angle closure glaucoma in European derived populations: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1162-1167.
2. Hennis AJ, Wu S-Y, Nemesure B, et al. Nine-year incidence of visual impairment in the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1461-1468.
3. Rao HL, Addepalli UK, Jonnadula GB, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and rate of visual field progression in treated glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:719-724.
4. Topouzis F, Wilson MR, Harris A, et al. Risk factors for primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma in the Thessaloniki eye study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:219-228, e1.
5. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Stroux A, et al. Circadian intraocular pressure profiles in chronic open angle glaucomas. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2010;5:92-100.
6. Bengtsson B, Leske MC, Hyman L, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:205-209.
7. Hughes E, Spry P, Diamond J. 24-hour monitoring of intraocular pressure in glaucoma management: a retrospective review. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:232-236.
8. Jü rgens C, Antal S, Henrici K, et al. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure in 24-hour telemonitoring compared to tonometry during normal office hours. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2009;226:54-59.
9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
10. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839-843.
11. Kontiola AI. A new induction-based impact method for measuring intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000; 78:142-145.
12. Kontiola AI, Goldblum D, Mittag T, et al. The induction/impact tonometer: a new instrument to measure intraocular pressure in the rat. Exp Eye Res. 2001;73:781-785.
13. Kontiola A, Puska P. Measuring intraocular pressure with the Pulsair 3000 and Rebound tonometers in elderly patients without an anesthetic. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:3-7.
14. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, et al. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4578-4580.
15. Fernandes P, Dáz-Rey JA, Queiró s A, et al. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005;25:436-440.
16. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and Goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:2156-2162.
17. Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, et al. Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:43-47.
18. Jó hannesson G, Hallberg P, Eklund A, et al. ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry-a comparative study. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2008;86:614-621.
19. Jorge JMM, Gonzá lez-Meíjome JM, Queiró s A, et al. Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:442-448.
20. Moreno-Montañ és J, Garcá N, Ferná ndez-Hortelano A, et al. Rebound tonometer compared with Goldmann tonometer in normal and pathologic corneas. Cornea. 2007;26:427-430.
21. Rosentreter A, Jablonski KS, Mellein AC, et al. A new rebound tonometer for home monitoring of intraocular pressure. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249:1713-1719.
22. Halkiadakis I, Stratos A, Stergiopoulos G, et al. Evaluation of the Icare-ONE rebound tonometer as a self-measuring intraocular pressure device in normal subjects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;250:1207-1211.
23. Gandhi NG, Prakalapakorn SG, El-Dairi MA, et al. Icare ONE rebound versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with Known or suspected glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154:843-849.
24. Flemmons MS, Hsiao Y-C, Dzau J, et al. Icare rebound tonometry in children with known and suspected glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2011;15:153-157.
25. Asrani S, Chatterjee A, Wallace DK, et al. Evaluation of the ICare rebound tonometer as a home intraocular pressure monitoring device. J Glaucoma. 2011;20:74-79.
26. Muttuvelu DV, Baggesen K, Ehlers N. Precision and accuracy of the ICare tonometer-Peripheral and central IOP measurements by rebound tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:322-326.