mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of rebound and applanation tonometry in the management of patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Skellefteå County Hospital, Skellefteå, Sweden .
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5976-5193
2008 (English)In: Ophthalmic & physiological optics, ISSN 0275-5408, E-ISSN 1475-1313, Vol. 28, no 4, 382-386 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

AIM: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained with the iCare rebound tonometer (RBT) with values obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and to evaluate the impact of possible differences on management decisions. METHODS: The IOP was measured with the iCare RBT and GAT in 45 consecutive patients in a nurse-led glaucoma unit. The outcome measures were the IOP difference between the methods and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for IOP measurements. In all subjects where the IOP readings differed by >3 mmHg between the RBT and GAT, two ophthalmologists were independently asked to recommend treatment and/or follow-up intervals, based on the patients' clinical data and the IOP values. RESULTS: The RBT overestimated the IOP compared with GAT in 67% of the cases (30/45). In 78% (35/45) the IOP difference was within +/-3 mmHg. When an extreme value of 15 mmHg difference was excluded, the 95% LoA was +/-4.31 mmHg. In five of the 10 patients with an IOP difference of > +/- 3 mmHg the difference would have led to change in therapy; in three more patients the follow-up interval would have been changed. In the remaining two patients the difference in IOP would not have led to any change in management. CONCLUSIONS: The mean difference between RBT and GAT was small (1.5 +/- 3 mmHg) compared with the published repeatability of GAT values. Yet, the difference was found to have clinical implications in 18% (8/45) of the patients.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 28, no 4, 382-386 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-10580DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00571.xISI: 000256857900011PubMedID: 18565094Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-45349104331OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-10580DiVA: diva2:360162
Available from: 2010-11-02 Created: 2010-10-27 Last updated: 2014-06-23Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Martin, Lene
In the same journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 119 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf