Purchase this article with an account.
F.W. Chang, P. Gunvant, C.W. Lievens, J.M. Newman, III, M.D. Gerstner, C.L. Haine; Ocular Factors Affecting Measurements of the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):4435.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
1) To examine the effect of age and refractive error on measurements obtained using the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor (PPT). 2) To evaluate the short term agreement between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the PPT and compare it to the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). 3) To evaluate if long term use of the PPT improves its agreement with the GAT.
A total of 119 individuals (238 eyes) were enrolled in this study, of which 162 eyes were myopic, 30 eyes were emmetropic and 46 were hypermetropic. The mean age of study participants was 35.8 years (range 21–79). All study participants obtained IOP measurements using the PPT after being read a script of instructions on how to properly perform PPT. Individuals with glaucoma obtained additional IOP measurements using PPT after viewing an instructional video and after 30–days of home trial. The IOP was also measured using the GAT by an experienced clinician each time.
The difference in IOP between the GAT and PPT varied significantly in different refraction groups (ANCOVA F = 3.8, p= 0.01). Multiple regression analysis showed that age accounted significantly for the difference in IOP (adjusted R2 = 0.10 p<0.0001) whereas refraction was not a significant predictor. The overall agreement between the GAT and PPT was poor, intra–class correlation coefficient was 0.575 and the 95% confidence interval of agreement was wide, –6.93 to + 6.73 mmHg. For the glaucoma group the difference in IOP between GAT and PPT was not significantly different for measurements obtained after verbal instructions, instructional video or after 30 days of home use (Repeated ANCOVA p = 0.30).
The age of the individual is a significant predictor for the difference in IOP, perhaps due to age–related changes in rigidity. Agreement between the PPT and the GAT was poor and long term use of PPT did not improve its agreement with the GAT.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only