May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Assessing the Measurement and Value of IOP Changes in Glaucoma Using Modified Delphi Process With Glaucoma Experts
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • G. A. Cioffi
    Ophthalmology-Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon
  • P. P. Lee
    Glaucoma Service, Duke Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • M. B. Sultan
    US Medical Organization, Pfizer Inc, New York, New York
  • J. W. Grunden
    Worldwide Medical Organization, Pfizer Inc., New York, New York
  • IOP Consensus Panel
    Ophthalmology-Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 1267. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      G. A. Cioffi, P. P. Lee, M. B. Sultan, J. W. Grunden, IOP Consensus Panel; Assessing the Measurement and Value of IOP Changes in Glaucoma Using Modified Delphi Process With Glaucoma Experts. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):1267.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose:: To assess the degree of consensus among glaucoma experts (Barton, Burgoyne, Camras, Caprioli, Heijl, Jonas, Kuwayama, Susanna, Zimmerman) on the measurement, characterization, and potential implications of IOP and its fluctuation over time for glaucoma treatment.

Methods:: A multinational panel of 9 glaucoma experts used a modified Delphi process to rate levels of agreement using a 9 point likert scale for 72 statements organized into 3 broad domains. The domains included methods of measuring IOP, the importance of reduction, and clinical implications of changes in IOP within a day (short term fluctuation), and over a longer time period (long term fluctuation). A literature review was provided to panelists to assist in independent ratings. Consensus and non-consensus was determined by applying a statistical definition with a binomial distribution. A group meeting was held to discuss the 72 statements, with emphasis of non-consensus or indeterminate agreement. Panelists were provided the results of the group ratings. After discussion, panelists independently re-rated the statements.

Results:: The panel found consensus in 46% of the 72 statements, 49% were indeterminate, and 6% identified as non-consensus. For example, panelists agreed that reduction of IOP fluctuation should include reduction in the IOP peak and that care of patients with advancing glaucoma should include measurement of long-term IOP fluctuation. Panelists also agreed that short-term IOP fluctuation is not accurately measured by three IOP measurements during typical office hours (8 am - 5 pm).

Conclusions:: A modified Delphi process was useful in identifying areas of consensus regarding IOP measurement and the importance of IOP fluctuation among glaucoma experts. The panel agreed that adequate means of measuring IOP for clinical care exist, although the frequency at which IOP should be measured is poorly defined. The need for additional investigation for assessing the role of IOP changes in glaucoma management is highlighted by the indeterminate and non-consensus ratings among experts.

Keywords: intraocular pressure • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: risk factor assessment • clinical research methodology 

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.