June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Comparison of intraocular pressure measued with Goldmann applanation tomometry and with Icare tomomery
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Zhaohua Yu
    Neuroscience/Ophthalmology, Uppsala Universitet Medicinska fakulteten, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Per G Soderberg
    Neuroscience/Ophthalmology, Uppsala Universitet Medicinska fakulteten, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Zhaohua Yu, None; Per Soderberg, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 2559. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Zhaohua Yu, Per G Soderberg; Comparison of intraocular pressure measued with Goldmann applanation tomometry and with Icare tomomery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):2559.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of the study was to compare the variation of intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Icare tonometry, and if the methods were calibrated to each other.

Methods : Totally 20 persons with normal intraocular pressure were included and evenly divided into two groups. The IOPs were measured with GAT in one group and with Icare in another group. With each method, the IOPs were measured at two occasions and at each occasion 3 measurements were performed.

Results : The estimated variance among occasions for IOP with GAT was 7 times lower than the estimated variation with Icare. The estimated variance among measurements was 3 times lower with GAT than with Icare. The 95 % confidence intervals for each method’s mean IOPs were 11.9±1.0 mmHg for GAT and 14.2±1.4 mmHg for Icare.

Conclusions : The variation among both measurements and occasions is smaller with GAT than with Icare, and therefore the reliability is different between the two methods. The methods are not calibrated to each other.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×