目的探讨在不同的中央角膜厚度(CCT)下PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)眼压(IOP)测量值的相关性,评价两者测量值的一致性及临床上两种眼压计测量值相互替换的可能性。方法非青光眼病例87例(168只眼)分别用DCT和GAT...目的探讨在不同的中央角膜厚度(CCT)下PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)眼压(IOP)测量值的相关性,评价两者测量值的一致性及临床上两种眼压计测量值相互替换的可能性。方法非青光眼病例87例(168只眼)分别用DCT和GAT进行眼压测量,两种仪器的测量顺序随机。同时,用NIDEK UP-1000型角膜测厚仪测量CCT。DCT与GAT眼压测量值的相关性采用Spearson双变量相关分析,Bland-Altman分析法评价两种仪器IOP测量值的一致性。结果 (1)在不同的角膜厚度下DCT与GAT测得的IOP值均显著相关(CCT≤520μm,n=24,r=0.67,P<0.001;520μm<CCT≤580μm,n=100,r=0.71,P<0.001;CCT>580μm,n=44,r=0.61,P<0.001)。(2)DCT眼压测量值与CCT不相关(r=0.14,P=0.08),GAT眼压测量值与CCT显著相关(r=0.59,P<0.001)。(3)Bland-Altman一致性分析显示两种仪器的差值的均值为-0.9mm Hg,一致性界限为(-5.6 mm Hg,3.9 mm Hg)。结论 (1)在不同的角膜厚度下DCT与GAT的眼压测量值均显著相关。(2)DCT眼压测量值与CCT值不相关,GAT眼压测量值与CCT值显著相关。(3)一致性分析显示两者测量值的一致性界限跨度较宽,二者的IOP值不可简单地相互代替。展开更多
Purpose: The object of this study was to compare intraocular pressure measurem ents obtained with the TGDc-01 “PRA”, a new, transpalpebral indentation tonom eter, with those from Goldmann applanation tonometry in no...Purpose: The object of this study was to compare intraocular pressure measurem ents obtained with the TGDc-01 “PRA”, a new, transpalpebral indentation tonom eter, with those from Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Methods and Patients: Forty healthy eyes and 185 eyes suffering from glauc oma were included in the study. For Goldmann tonometry three measurements and fo r the TGDc01 ten measurements were performed in a random order. All participants were placed in an upright position for all measurements. Results: In both group s a systematic increase of intraocular pressure was found within the TGDc-01-m easurements. Therefore, the first 3 measurements of each device were used for fu rther statistical analysis. No learning curve could be demonstrated for the TGDc -01-measurement with normal eyes. Within the group of normal eyes the mean 1OD obtained with the TGDc-01 was 1.84 mmHg lower than the mean 1OD obtained with Goldmann tonometry (two-sided Student’s t-test; P=0.003). In the group of gla ucomatous eyes, the mean intraocular pressure obtained with the Goldmann tonomet ry was 19.7 ±10.1 mmHg, with the TGDC-01 18.1 ±7.1 mmHg (coefficient of correlation r=0.64, P< 0.001). The mean standard deviatio n of intraocular pressure measurements with Goldmann tonometry was 1.2 ±.0.9 mm Hg, with the TGDc01 3.1 ±2.1 mmHg. TGDc-01-measurements over-estimated intra ocular pressure compared to Goldmann tonometry up to values of 16 mmHg and under estimated intraocular pressure at values over 16 mmHg. The difference increased by 5.5 mmHg per 10 mmHg Goldmann tonometry. The probability of success, defined as TGDc-01-recordings within ±3 mmHg of the Goldmann tonometry recordings, wa s less than 53 %between 5 and 20 mmHg and less than 30 %between 20 and 30 mmHg . Intraocular pressure (Goldmann tonometry) over 30 mmHg was always accompanied by TGDc-01-measurements lower than 3 mmHg. Conclusion: In eyes with elevated i ntraocular pressure, the TGDc-01 “PRA”significantly underestimated the intrao cular pressure measurement when compared to the gold standard, Goldmann tonometr y. At present, measurement of the intraocular pressure with the TGDc-01 should not be used for clinical management of patients with glaucoma.展开更多
Purpose:Applanation tonometry as performed in routine clinical practice is a significant potential vehicle for cross-infection particularly in an emergency eye care setting.The aim of this study is to evaluate the acc...Purpose:Applanation tonometry as performed in routine clinical practice is a significant potential vehicle for cross-infection particularly in an emergency eye care setting.The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of three single-use devices(Tonoshield,Tonosafe,Tonojet)as an alternative to standard Goldmann prisms in an emergency eye department.Methods:All patients attending the eye casualty at the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital for a period of 4 months who required intraocular pressure measurement were eligible for this prospective study.Exclusion criteria were:age below 18 years,corneal anomalies that might affect measurement,and refusal to participate.After taking informed consent,the patient was examined by one experienced nurse practitioner,who measured the intraocular pressure three times.In the first part of the study,we compared the standard Goldmann prism vs Tonoshield and Tonosafe prisms,while for the second part of the study we used standard Goldmann,Tonosafe,and Tonojet prisms.Agreement and repeatability tests were carried out on separate samples.Results:Tonosafe and Tonojet correlated well with standard Goldmann tonometry(P< 0.001),while the measurements obtained with Tonoshield were higher,especially for raised intraocular pressure measurements.Tonojet and Tonosafe measurements were more reproducible than Tonoshield measurements.Conclusions:This study shows that Tonosafe and Tonojet are accurate and reliable alternatives to standard Goldmann tonometry.展开更多
Objective:To compare intraocular p ressure(IOP)values obtained by patients using the new Pr oview eye pressure monitor(Bausch &Lomb,Rochester,NY)with those measured with the Goldmann tonomete r and the TonoPen(Men...Objective:To compare intraocular p ressure(IOP)values obtained by patients using the new Pr oview eye pressure monitor(Bausch &Lomb,Rochester,NY)with those measured with the Goldmann tonomete r and the TonoPen(Mentor,Norwell,Mass).Methods:Eighty-six patients(a total of 171eyes)-with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully comp leted the study.The IOP was measured by 3methods in the fo llowing order:Goldmann tonometer,TonoPen,and Pr oview eye pressure monitor.The central corneal thickn ess was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter.Separate ly for each eye,the differences in mean IOP values betwe en measurement methods were assessed with paired te sts and also in mul-tivariate models that tested the dep endence of IOP differ-ence on central corneal thickness.R esults:There was a significant difference(P<.001)in the mean IOPs measured by the 3different methods(Goldmann vs Proview,Goldmann vs TonoPen,and TonoPen vs Proview)for both eyes,and the difference was indepen-dent of the central corneal thickness.The differences be-tween IOP measured by Goldmann and Pr oview were sim-ilar in all categories of patient-re ported ease of using the Proview.Conclusions:The IOPs obta ined with the Proview eye pressure monitor are sig nificantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonome ter and the TonoPen,and variations of the centr al corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference.Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldm ann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong.On the other hand,as expected,measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.展开更多
文摘目的探讨在不同的中央角膜厚度(CCT)下PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)眼压(IOP)测量值的相关性,评价两者测量值的一致性及临床上两种眼压计测量值相互替换的可能性。方法非青光眼病例87例(168只眼)分别用DCT和GAT进行眼压测量,两种仪器的测量顺序随机。同时,用NIDEK UP-1000型角膜测厚仪测量CCT。DCT与GAT眼压测量值的相关性采用Spearson双变量相关分析,Bland-Altman分析法评价两种仪器IOP测量值的一致性。结果 (1)在不同的角膜厚度下DCT与GAT测得的IOP值均显著相关(CCT≤520μm,n=24,r=0.67,P<0.001;520μm<CCT≤580μm,n=100,r=0.71,P<0.001;CCT>580μm,n=44,r=0.61,P<0.001)。(2)DCT眼压测量值与CCT不相关(r=0.14,P=0.08),GAT眼压测量值与CCT显著相关(r=0.59,P<0.001)。(3)Bland-Altman一致性分析显示两种仪器的差值的均值为-0.9mm Hg,一致性界限为(-5.6 mm Hg,3.9 mm Hg)。结论 (1)在不同的角膜厚度下DCT与GAT的眼压测量值均显著相关。(2)DCT眼压测量值与CCT值不相关,GAT眼压测量值与CCT值显著相关。(3)一致性分析显示两者测量值的一致性界限跨度较宽,二者的IOP值不可简单地相互代替。
文摘Purpose: The object of this study was to compare intraocular pressure measurem ents obtained with the TGDc-01 “PRA”, a new, transpalpebral indentation tonom eter, with those from Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Methods and Patients: Forty healthy eyes and 185 eyes suffering from glauc oma were included in the study. For Goldmann tonometry three measurements and fo r the TGDc01 ten measurements were performed in a random order. All participants were placed in an upright position for all measurements. Results: In both group s a systematic increase of intraocular pressure was found within the TGDc-01-m easurements. Therefore, the first 3 measurements of each device were used for fu rther statistical analysis. No learning curve could be demonstrated for the TGDc -01-measurement with normal eyes. Within the group of normal eyes the mean 1OD obtained with the TGDc-01 was 1.84 mmHg lower than the mean 1OD obtained with Goldmann tonometry (two-sided Student’s t-test; P=0.003). In the group of gla ucomatous eyes, the mean intraocular pressure obtained with the Goldmann tonomet ry was 19.7 ±10.1 mmHg, with the TGDC-01 18.1 ±7.1 mmHg (coefficient of correlation r=0.64, P< 0.001). The mean standard deviatio n of intraocular pressure measurements with Goldmann tonometry was 1.2 ±.0.9 mm Hg, with the TGDc01 3.1 ±2.1 mmHg. TGDc-01-measurements over-estimated intra ocular pressure compared to Goldmann tonometry up to values of 16 mmHg and under estimated intraocular pressure at values over 16 mmHg. The difference increased by 5.5 mmHg per 10 mmHg Goldmann tonometry. The probability of success, defined as TGDc-01-recordings within ±3 mmHg of the Goldmann tonometry recordings, wa s less than 53 %between 5 and 20 mmHg and less than 30 %between 20 and 30 mmHg . Intraocular pressure (Goldmann tonometry) over 30 mmHg was always accompanied by TGDc-01-measurements lower than 3 mmHg. Conclusion: In eyes with elevated i ntraocular pressure, the TGDc-01 “PRA”significantly underestimated the intrao cular pressure measurement when compared to the gold standard, Goldmann tonometr y. At present, measurement of the intraocular pressure with the TGDc-01 should not be used for clinical management of patients with glaucoma.
文摘Purpose:Applanation tonometry as performed in routine clinical practice is a significant potential vehicle for cross-infection particularly in an emergency eye care setting.The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of three single-use devices(Tonoshield,Tonosafe,Tonojet)as an alternative to standard Goldmann prisms in an emergency eye department.Methods:All patients attending the eye casualty at the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital for a period of 4 months who required intraocular pressure measurement were eligible for this prospective study.Exclusion criteria were:age below 18 years,corneal anomalies that might affect measurement,and refusal to participate.After taking informed consent,the patient was examined by one experienced nurse practitioner,who measured the intraocular pressure three times.In the first part of the study,we compared the standard Goldmann prism vs Tonoshield and Tonosafe prisms,while for the second part of the study we used standard Goldmann,Tonosafe,and Tonojet prisms.Agreement and repeatability tests were carried out on separate samples.Results:Tonosafe and Tonojet correlated well with standard Goldmann tonometry(P< 0.001),while the measurements obtained with Tonoshield were higher,especially for raised intraocular pressure measurements.Tonojet and Tonosafe measurements were more reproducible than Tonoshield measurements.Conclusions:This study shows that Tonosafe and Tonojet are accurate and reliable alternatives to standard Goldmann tonometry.
文摘Objective:To compare intraocular p ressure(IOP)values obtained by patients using the new Pr oview eye pressure monitor(Bausch &Lomb,Rochester,NY)with those measured with the Goldmann tonomete r and the TonoPen(Mentor,Norwell,Mass).Methods:Eighty-six patients(a total of 171eyes)-with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully comp leted the study.The IOP was measured by 3methods in the fo llowing order:Goldmann tonometer,TonoPen,and Pr oview eye pressure monitor.The central corneal thickn ess was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter.Separate ly for each eye,the differences in mean IOP values betwe en measurement methods were assessed with paired te sts and also in mul-tivariate models that tested the dep endence of IOP differ-ence on central corneal thickness.R esults:There was a significant difference(P<.001)in the mean IOPs measured by the 3different methods(Goldmann vs Proview,Goldmann vs TonoPen,and TonoPen vs Proview)for both eyes,and the difference was indepen-dent of the central corneal thickness.The differences be-tween IOP measured by Goldmann and Pr oview were sim-ilar in all categories of patient-re ported ease of using the Proview.Conclusions:The IOPs obta ined with the Proview eye pressure monitor are sig nificantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonome ter and the TonoPen,and variations of the centr al corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference.Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldm ann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong.On the other hand,as expected,measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.
基金partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 52174362, 51975207)the Xiangtan Special Project for Building a National Innovative City,China (No. CG-YB20221043)the Yancheng “Talent Plan of Yellow Sea Pearl” for Leading Talent Project,China。
