4.6 Article

Evaluation of a new rebound tonometer for self-measurement of intraocular pressure

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 8, Pages 1139-1143

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307674

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. International Glaucoma Association (IGA), UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/aims To compare the accuracy of self-obtained, partner-obtained and trainer-obtained measurements using the handheld Icare Home rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and to evaluate the acceptability to subjects of Icare Home measurement. Methods 76 subjects were trained to use Icare Home for self-measurement using a standardised protocol. A prespecified checklist was used to assess the ability of a subject to perform self-tonometry. Accuracy of Icare Home self-measurement was compared with GAT using one eye per subject, randomly selected. Bland-Altman difference analysis was used to compare Icare Home and GAT intraocular pressure (IOP) estimates. Acceptability of self-tonometry was evaluated using a questionnaire. Results 56 subjects (74%, 95% CI 64 to 84) were able to correctly perform self-tonometry. Mean bias (95% limits of agreement) was 0.3 mm Hg (-4.6 to 5.2), 1.1 mm Hg (-3.2 to 5.3) and 1.2 mm Hg (-3.9 to 6.3) for self-assessment, partner-assessment and trainer-assessment, respectively, suggesting underestimation of IOP by Icare Home tonometry. Differences between GAT and Icare Home IOP were greater for central corneal thickness below 500 mm and above 600 mm than data points within this range. Acceptability questionnaire responses showed high agreement that the self-pressure device was easy to use (84%), the reading was quick to obtain (88%) and the measurement was comfortable (95%). Conclusions Icare Home tonometry can be used for self-measurement by a majority of trained subjects. IOP measurements obtained using Icare Home tonometry by self-assessment and third party-assessment showed slight underestimation compared with GAT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available