Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) · 2004
Clinical comparison of the Proview eye pressure monitor with the Goldmann applanation tonometer and the Tonopen.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Junping, Herndon Leon W, Asrani Sanjay G, Stinnett Sandra, Allingham R Rand
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained by patients using the new Proview eye pressure monitor (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with those measured with the Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen (Mentor, Norwell, Mass).
METHODS: Eighty-six patients (a total of 171 eyes) with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully completed the study. The IOP was measured by 3 methods in the following order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Proview eye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickness was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter. Separately for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values between measurement methods were assessed with paired t tests and also in multivariate models that tested the dependence of IOP difference on central corneal thickness.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P<.001) in the mean IOPs measured by the 3 different methods (Goldmann vs Proview, Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the difference was independent of the central corneal thickness. The differences between IOP measured by Goldmann and Proview were similar in all categories of patient-reported ease of using the Proview.
CONCLUSIONS: The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are significantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen, and variations of the central corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldmann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.
METHODS: Eighty-six patients (a total of 171 eyes) with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully completed the study. The IOP was measured by 3 methods in the following order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Proview eye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickness was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter. Separately for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values between measurement methods were assessed with paired t tests and also in multivariate models that tested the dependence of IOP difference on central corneal thickness.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P<.001) in the mean IOPs measured by the 3 different methods (Goldmann vs Proview, Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the difference was independent of the central corneal thickness. The differences between IOP measured by Goldmann and Proview were similar in all categories of patient-reported ease of using the Proview.
CONCLUSIONS: The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are significantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen, and variations of the central corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldmann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.