June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Accuracy of measurements of the iCare HOME rebound tonometer
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Julia Termuehlen
    Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • Natasa Mihailovic
    Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • Nicole Eter
    Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • Thomas Dietlein
    University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • Andre Rosentreter
    Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Julia Termuehlen, None; Natasa Mihailovic, None; Nicole Eter, Allergan (C), Bayer (C), Heidelberg Engineering (C), Novartis (C); Thomas Dietlein, None; Andre Rosentreter, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 99. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Julia Termuehlen, Natasa Mihailovic, Nicole Eter, Thomas Dietlein, Andre Rosentreter; Accuracy of measurements of the iCare HOME rebound tonometer. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):99.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of the newly available iCare HOME (RT-HOME) rebound tonometer compared to the iCare ONE (RT-ONE) rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

Methods: In case of sixty-four patients (mean age 57.66 ± 19.48 years) IOP measurements were obtained with each of the above-mentioned tonometers by an ophthalmologist (o). In addition, patients (p) measured their own IOP with the RT-HOME and the RT-ONE. The means and standard deviation for all tonometers were compared. Agreement between the tonometers was calculated using Bland-Altman plots.

Results: Mean IOP's obtained were 15.23 ± 6.42 mmHg (RT-ONE(o)), 15.07 ± 6.68 mmHg (RT-ONE(p)), 14.36 ± 6.24 mmHg (RT-HOME(o)), 14.48 ± 6.08 mmHg (RT-HOME(p)) and 15.31 ± 4.40 mmHg (GAT). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference (bias) between RT-HOME(o) and RT-ONE(o), between RT-HOME(o) and RT-HOME(p), and between RT-HOME(o) and GAT of -0.87, -0.21, and -0.95 mmHg, respectively, with 95%-limits of agreement of -5.01 to 3.26, -5.39 to 4.97, and -7.58 to 5.68 mmHg, respectively. Linear regression of the Bland Altmann Analysis at RT-HOME(o) vs. GAT revealed a proportional error over the range of pressures: slope = 0.37, p < 0.001.

Conclusions: The measurement of both RT-HOME and RT-ONE revealed in general a high congruency with the GAT. The highest consistency of IOP measurements between (o) and (p) refers to RT-HOME. Both rebound tomometers, in particular the RT-HOME, indicated in average lower IOP values than those taken with the applanation tonometry. RT-HOME seems to overestimate IOP in higher IOP values and underestimate IOP in lower IOP range.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×