Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;89:847-850; doi:10.1136/bjo.2004.056614
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;89:847-850
© 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

EXTENDED REPORT

A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability

P-A Tonnu1, T Ho1, K Sharma1, E White1, C Bunce2 and D Garway-Heath1

1 Glaucoma Research Unit, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London EC1V 2PD, UK
2 Department of Research and Development, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London EC1V 2PD, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
D F Garway-Heath
MD, FRCOphth, Glaucoma Research Unit, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London EC1V 2PD, UK; david.garway-heath{at}moorfields.nhs.uk

Aim: To compare the inter-method agreement in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with four different tonometric methods.

Methods: IOP was measured with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Tono-Pen XL, ocular blood flow tonograph (OBF), and Canon TX-10 non-contact tonometer (NCT) in a randomised order in one eye of each of 105 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Three measurements were made with each method, and by each of two independent GAT observers. GAT interobserver and tonometer inter-method agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The outcome measures were 95% limits of agreement for IOP measurements between GAT observers and between tonometric methods, and 95% confidence intervals for intra-session repeated measurements.

Results: The mean differences (bias) in IOP measurements were 0.4 mm Hg between GAT observers, and 0.6 mm Hg, 0.1 mm Hg, and 0.7 mm Hg between GAT and Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were smallest (bias ±2.6 mm Hg) between GAT observers, and larger for agreement between the GAT and the Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT (bias ±6.7, ±5.5, and ±4.8 mm Hg, respectively). The OBF and NCT significantly underestimated GAT measurements at lower IOP and overestimated these at higher IOP. The repeatability coefficients for intra-session repeated measurement for each method were ±2.2 mm Hg and ±2.5 mm Hg for the GAT, ±4.3 mm Hg for the Tono-Pen, ±3.7 mm Hg for the OBF, and ±3.2 mm Hg for the NCT.

Conclusions: There was good interobserver agreement with the GAT and moderate agreement between the NCT and GAT. The differences between the GAT and OBF and between the GAT and Tono-Pen probably preclude the OBF and Tono-Pen from routine clinical use as objective methods to measure IOP in normal adult eyes.

Abbreviations: CCT, central corneal thickness; GAT, Goldmann applanation tonometer; IOP, intraocular pressure; NCT, non-contact tonometer; OBF, ocular blood flow; OHT, ocular hypertension

Keywords: tonometry; intraocular pressure; comparative study; repeatability


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Quaranta, L., Miglior, S., Floriani, I., Pizzolante, T., Konstas, A. G. P. (2008). Effects of the Timolol-Dorzolamide Fixed Combination and Latanoprost on Circadian Diastolic Ocular Perfusion Pressure in Glaucoma. IOVS 49: 4226-4231 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Moreno-Montanes, J., Maldonado, M. J., Garcia, N., Mendiluce, L., Garcia-Gomez, P. J., Segui-Gomez, M. (2008). Reproducibility and Clinical Relevance of the Ocular Response Analyzer in Nonoperated Eyes: Corneal Biomechanical and Tonometric Implications. IOVS 49: 968-974 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kotecha, A., Elsheikh, A., Roberts, C. R., Zhu, H., Garway-Heath, D. F. (2006). Corneal Thickness- and Age-Related Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea Measured with the Ocular Response Analyzer. IOVS 47: 5337-5347 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kotecha, A, White, E T, Shewry, J M, Garway-Heath, D F (2005). The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 89: 1572-1575 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Ophthalmology Jobs

Ophthalmology Jobs