May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Evaluating the Accuracy of Phosphene Tonometry in Assessing Intraocular Pressure
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.W. Rahman
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
  • F.A. Stockl
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
  • D.P. Tingey
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.W. Rahman, None; F.A. Stockl, None; D.P. Tingey, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 2199. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.W. Rahman, F.A. Stockl, D.P. Tingey; Evaluating the Accuracy of Phosphene Tonometry in Assessing Intraocular Pressure . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):2199.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose:Intraocular pressure measurements taken by the ProviewTM Phosphene tonometer were compared to Goldmann tonometer measurements in order to assess their accuracy. Methods: 73 consecutive patients from our Retina clinic were recruited (average age 63 years; range 15 to 83; 34 women and 38 men) after their usual initial assessment by the nurse, who measured IOP using the Goldmann Tonometer and then inserted dilating drops. After a brief presentation on how to use the ProviewTM phosphene tonometer and a few attempts to appreciate the phosphene, 2 IOP readings were first self-obtained by the patient (PIOP1, PIOP2), then 2 readings were taken by the first author (TIOP1, TIOP2). One of three different phosphene tonometers was used with each patient in order to test for inter-instrument variability. These readings were compared to the gold standard Goldmann tonometer readings (GIOP), to which both the patient and the first author were blinded. Results: Inconclusive data from 24 patients was excluded. Data from 49 patients was examined showing good correlation between the two self-readings obtained by patients (Pearson Correlation Coefficient 0.831, for p<0.0001), and good correlation between the 2 readings taken by the first author (Pearson CC 0.908, p<0.0001). When patients’ self-obtained IOP readings were compared to the IOP readings obtained by the first author, they were moderately correlated (Pearson CC: 0.590 – 0.711, for p0.20). Conclusions: Self-obtained IOP readings using the phosphene tonometer are reasonably reproducible and comparable to phosphene tonometer IOP readings taken by a technician for the patient. Phosphene tonometer IOP readings do not correlate well with the gold standard Goldmann IOP readings according to this study. Retinal pathology may interfere with the appreciation of a phosphene precluding the use of a phosphene tonometer in these patients. 3 different phosphene tonometers were shown to have no inter-instrument variability.

Keywords: intraocular pressure • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: sys 

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.