This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (20)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Glaucoma  • Ophthalmological Procedures, Other  • Articles for Residents  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Junping Li, MD, PhD; Leon W. Herndon, MD; Sanjay G. Asrani, MD; Sandra Stinnett, DrPH; R. Rand Allingham, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1117-1121.

Objective  To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained by patients using the new Proview eye pressure monitor (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with those measured with the Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen (Mentor, Norwell, Mass).

Methods  Eighty-six patients (a total of 171 eyes) with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully completed the study. The IOP was measured by 3 methods in the following order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Proview eye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickness was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter. Separately for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values between measurement methods were assessed with paired t tests and also in multivariate models that tested the dependence of IOP difference on central corneal thickness.

Results  There was a significant difference (P<.001) in the mean IOPs measured by the 3 different methods (Goldmann vs Proview, Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the difference was independent of the central corneal thickness. The differences between IOP measured by Goldmann and Proview were similar in all categories of patient-reported ease of using the Proview.

Conclusions  The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are significantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen, and variations of the central corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldmann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.

From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia (Dr Li); and Departments of Ophthalmology (Drs Herndon, Asrani, Stinnett, and Allingham) and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (Dr Stinnett), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Longitudinal Study to Establish the Normative Value and to Evaluate Perinatal Factors Affecting Intraocular Pressure in Preterm Infants
Ng et al.
IOVS 2008;49:87-92.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Comparison of the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor With the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer and the TonoPen--Reply
Herndon et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:579-580.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Comparison of the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor With the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer and the TonoPen
Leung and Lam
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:578-579.
FULL TEXT