4.1 Article

Evaluation of the ICare Rebound Tonometer as a Home Intraocular Pressure Monitoring Device

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 74-79

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181d78811

Keywords

Self-tonometry; intraocular pressure; rebound tonometer

Categories

Funding

  1. American Glaucoma Society
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. NY, NY

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: (a) To investigate whether the ICare rebound tonometer can provide accurate measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) in the hands of an inexperienced user compared with ICare measurements and Goldmann tonometry by a trained technician and (b) to assess the intrauser reproducibility of IOP measurements and the learning curve among patients using the ICare rebound tonometer. Methods: A trained technician used the ICare rebound tonometer to measure the IOP of the right eye of 100 glaucoma patients. The technician then instructed each patient on use of the ICare tonometer. Each patient then measured his/her own pressure using the ICare tonometer. Finally, a different technician, who was masked to both of the earlier readings, measured IOP by Goldmann applanation tonometry. Thirty patients repeated the ICare measurement 3 times (once every 5 min) 20 minutes after the initial IOP measurement. Results: Of the 100 patients, 82 of patient ICare and the technician ICare readings were within 3 mm Hg of each other, and 75 of the patient ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements were within 3 mm Hg of each other. Intraclass correlations between self-administered ICare measurements 1and 2, 1 and 3, and 2 and 3 were 0.69, 0.71 and 0.81, respectively. Conclusion: In this study, the ICare rebound tonometer was accurate and reliable in the hands of patients. Patients can easily learn to self-administer this test, possibly allowing for home monitoring of IOP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available