4.6 Review

Systematic Review of the Agreement of Tonometers with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 119, 期 8, 页码 1552-1557

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.030

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme [07/46/02]
  2. Medical Research Council UK fellowship [G0601938]
  3. AstraZeneca (London, UK)
  4. Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates
  5. MRC [G0601938] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Chief Scientist Office [HSRU1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0601938] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. National Institute for Health Research [04/08/02, 07/46/02] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the agreement of tonometers available for clinical practice with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), the most commonly accepted reference device. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of directly comparative studies assessing the agreement of 1 or more tonometers with the reference tonometer (GAT). Participants: A total of 11 582 participants (15 525 eyes) were included. Methods: Summary 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were produced for each comparison. Main Outcome Measures: Agreement, recordability, and reliability. Results: A total of 102 studies, including 130 paired comparisons, were included, representing 8 tonometers: dynamic contour tonometer, noncontact tonometer (NCT), ocular response analyzer, Ocuton S, handheld applanation tonometer (HAT), rebound tonometer, transpalpebral tonometer, and Tono-Pen. The agreement (95% limits) seemed to vary across tonometers: 0.2 mmHg (-3.8 to 4.3 mmHg) for the NCT to 2.7 mmHg (-4.1 to 9.6 mmHg) for the Ocuton S. The estimated proportion within 2 mmHg of the GAT ranged from 33% (Ocuton S) to 66% and 59% (NCT and HAT, respectively). Substantial inter-and intraobserver variability were observed for all tonometers. Conclusions: The NCT and HAT seem to achieve a measurement closest to the GAT. However, there was substantial variability in measurements both within and between studies. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1552-1557 (C) 2012 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据