4.6 Article

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

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 100, 期 8, 页码 1139-1143

出版社

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

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Glaucoma Association (IGA), UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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