File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readings

TitleComparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readings
Authors
Issue Date2007
PublisherNature Publishing Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.nature.com/eye
Citation
Eye, 2007, v. 21 n. 6, p. 789-792 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose: To test the agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with Luneau SA applanators and Goldmann applanator. Materials and Methods: A single-blind crossover trial. IOPs were measured in both eyes of subjects with both applanators. Type of applanator was alternated to eliminate systematic bias. Multiple observers were used. Observers were blind to the scale while performing measurements but not to the type of applanator used. The appearance of the meniscus was assessed semiquantitatively. All measurements were combined and presented in a Bland-Altman plot. Results: A total of 140 eyes of 79 subjects were tested by seven observers. The range of measurements was 6-45mmHg (mean 17.8mmHg) for the Goldmann applanator. On average, the Luneau SA applanator (range of measurements 4-36mmHg) gave a measurement of 2.35mmHg less than the Goldmann standard. The standard deviation of these differences was 2.13mmHg, giving an upper 95% confidence limit of 6.53mmHg and a lower 95% confidence limit of -1.83mmHg. The measurements agreed in only 24 out of 140 instances. In 28 eyes, the disposable tonometer end point was difficult to assess owing to excessively thick rings. Linear extrapolation suggests an increase in difference with increasing IOP. Conclusion: The inter-head inaccuracy, tendency to underestimate IOP, and lack of systematic inaccuracy make a corrective algorithm impossible to formulate. The range of variation between the Luneau SA disposable applanator and the Goldmann standard is sufficiently large to influence clinical management decisions. We speculate that one explanation is the interaction of the tonometer with the tear film, making end point determination difficult. Further research is being undertaken.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90383
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.213
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.132
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBaddon, ACJen_HK
dc.contributor.authorOsborne, SFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorQuah, SAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBatterbury, Men_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, Den_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T10:09:36Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T10:09:36Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_HK
dc.identifier.citationEye, 2007, v. 21 n. 6, p. 789-792en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0950-222Xen_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90383-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To test the agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with Luneau SA applanators and Goldmann applanator. Materials and Methods: A single-blind crossover trial. IOPs were measured in both eyes of subjects with both applanators. Type of applanator was alternated to eliminate systematic bias. Multiple observers were used. Observers were blind to the scale while performing measurements but not to the type of applanator used. The appearance of the meniscus was assessed semiquantitatively. All measurements were combined and presented in a Bland-Altman plot. Results: A total of 140 eyes of 79 subjects were tested by seven observers. The range of measurements was 6-45mmHg (mean 17.8mmHg) for the Goldmann applanator. On average, the Luneau SA applanator (range of measurements 4-36mmHg) gave a measurement of 2.35mmHg less than the Goldmann standard. The standard deviation of these differences was 2.13mmHg, giving an upper 95% confidence limit of 6.53mmHg and a lower 95% confidence limit of -1.83mmHg. The measurements agreed in only 24 out of 140 instances. In 28 eyes, the disposable tonometer end point was difficult to assess owing to excessively thick rings. Linear extrapolation suggests an increase in difference with increasing IOP. Conclusion: The inter-head inaccuracy, tendency to underestimate IOP, and lack of systematic inaccuracy make a corrective algorithm impossible to formulate. The range of variation between the Luneau SA disposable applanator and the Goldmann standard is sufficiently large to influence clinical management decisions. We speculate that one explanation is the interaction of the tonometer with the tear film, making end point determination difficult. Further research is being undertaken.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherNature Publishing Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.nature.com/eyeen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofEyeen_HK
dc.subject.meshDisposable Equipment-
dc.subject.meshIntraocular Pressure-
dc.subject.meshReproducibility of Results-
dc.subject.meshSingle-Blind Method-
dc.subject.meshTonometry, Ocular - instrumentation - standards-
dc.titleComparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readingsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0950-222X&volume=21&issue=6&spage=789&epage=792&date=2007&atitle=Comparison+of+Luneau+SA+disposable+and+Goldmann+applanation+tonometer+readingsen_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, D: shdwong@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, D=rp00516en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/sj.eye.6702329en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid16628242-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-34250339713en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros136232en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-34250339713&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume21en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage789en_HK
dc.identifier.epage792en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000247116100018-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBaddon, ACJ=16506113200en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridOsborne, SF=7102780299en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridQuah, SA=7003418735en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBatterbury, M=35513013200en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, D=7401536078en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike594534-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats