Abstract
Purpose: :
To assess and compare the reproducibility of intraocular pressure measurements with Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Goldmann tonometry, and to analyze the relation of those measurements with pachimetry.
Methods: :
Cross sectional study. A hundred eyes were included in the study. Three consecutive measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP), with Goldmann and ORA tonometry. The mean of the 3 IOP values given by ORA was used for evaluation of reproducibility. The order of the measurements ORA/Goldmann was randomly selected. Reproducibility was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient and compared among the three types of IOP (Goldmann, ORAg and ORAcc) with variance analysis (ANOVA). The correlation between IOP measurements and pachimetry was evaluated with Pearson/Spearman test.
Results: :
The means were 16.99±4,40mmHg; 17.46±5.73 mmHg and 18.87±5,64 mmHg for IOP Goldmann, IOP ORAg and IOP ORAcc. Significant correlation was found between IOP measurements (p<0.01), Goldmann with ORAg (R²=0.6151); Goldmann with ORAcc (R²= 0.5316) and between IOP Goldmann and ORA with pachimetry (p<0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.958, 0.864 and 0.777 for Goldmann, ORAg and ORAcc, respectively. The IOP Goldmann measures show less amount of variability among values than ORA. The third consecutive measure of ORAg and ORAcc had higher standard deviation (ORAg 3: 6.51; ORAcc 3: 6.78) than the first two (ORAg 1: 5.85; ORA g 2: 5.67) (ORAcc 1:5.73; ORAcc 2: 5.78 mmHg).
Conclusions: :
Both tonometry show high reproducibility. Goldman IOP tonometry has less variability than ORA. The IOP ORAcc is over estimate in 2 mmHg. The value of IOP ORAcc isn't fully independent of pachimetry.
Keywords: intraocular pressure • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques