BMC ophthalmology · 2021
Differential impact of prostaglandin analogues on agreement of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation, rebound, and noncontact tonometry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jung Younhea, Suh Hyun, Moon Jung Il
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of topical prostaglandin analogues on agreement of IOP measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), rebound tonometry (RBT), and noncontact tonometry (NCT) in eyes with primary open- angle glaucoma (POAG).
METHODS: Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained using GAT, RBT, and NCT in patients with POAG with or without prostaglandin analogues. The agreement between each tonometry was analysed using Bland-Altman analyses in those with or without prostaglandin analogues. The effect of average IOP on IOP differences was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Among a total of 86 subjects included in the study, 44 patients were using prostaglandin analogues. The difference in IOP measured by GAT and RBT was marginally greater in those with (GAT-RBT: - 0.94 ± 1.63 mmHg) prostaglandin analogues than in those without (- 0.33 ± 1.22 mmHg, P = 0.06). The difference in IOP measured by GAT and NCT was significantly greater in the prostaglandin group (GAT-NCT: 2.40 ± 2.89 mmHg) than in the group without prostaglandin analogues (0.41 ± 1.63 mmHg, P < 0.01). While there was no significant relationship between the average of all tonometries and the difference between tonometries in those without prostaglandin analogues, both RBT and NCT underestimated IOP relative to GAT at higher IOP in those using prostaglandin analogues.
CONCLUSION: Intraocular pressure measured by RBT and NCT was similar to that measured by GAT in those without prostaglandin analogues. RBT overestimated and NCT underestimated IOP compared to GAT in those using prostaglandin analogues.
METHODS: Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained using GAT, RBT, and NCT in patients with POAG with or without prostaglandin analogues. The agreement between each tonometry was analysed using Bland-Altman analyses in those with or without prostaglandin analogues. The effect of average IOP on IOP differences was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Among a total of 86 subjects included in the study, 44 patients were using prostaglandin analogues. The difference in IOP measured by GAT and RBT was marginally greater in those with (GAT-RBT: - 0.94 ± 1.63 mmHg) prostaglandin analogues than in those without (- 0.33 ± 1.22 mmHg, P = 0.06). The difference in IOP measured by GAT and NCT was significantly greater in the prostaglandin group (GAT-NCT: 2.40 ± 2.89 mmHg) than in the group without prostaglandin analogues (0.41 ± 1.63 mmHg, P < 0.01). While there was no significant relationship between the average of all tonometries and the difference between tonometries in those without prostaglandin analogues, both RBT and NCT underestimated IOP relative to GAT at higher IOP in those using prostaglandin analogues.
CONCLUSION: Intraocular pressure measured by RBT and NCT was similar to that measured by GAT in those without prostaglandin analogues. RBT overestimated and NCT underestimated IOP compared to GAT in those using prostaglandin analogues.