Comparison of Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Non-contact Tonometry in Older Patients Presenting with Headache or Vision Loss.

IF 0.4 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Open Ophthalmology Journal Pub Date : 2018-06-22 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.2174/1874364101812010104
Edsel Ing, Angela Zhang, Evan Michaelov, Wendy Wang
{"title":"Comparison of Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Non-contact Tonometry in Older Patients Presenting with Headache or Vision Loss.","authors":"Edsel Ing,&nbsp;Angela Zhang,&nbsp;Evan Michaelov,&nbsp;Wendy Wang","doi":"10.2174/1874364101812010104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) is touted to be the most accurate tonometer for Intraocular Pressure (IOP) measurement. Non-Contact \"air puff\" Tonometry (NCT) may be the most commonly used tonometer for screening of IOP. Elevated IOP is important to exclude in patients presenting with headache or vision loss.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the agreement between DCT and NCT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The IOP of adult patients 50 years of age or older presenting with headache or vision loss for possible temporal artery biopsy were prospectively recorded. NCT and DCT measurements were obtained within thirty minutes. The right eye IOP measurements were compared with paired t-test, and Bland- Altman plot analysis. The left eye IOP measurements were subsequently analyzed for confirmation of results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 106 subjects with complete right eye data, and 104 subjects with complete left eye data. The average age was 72 years, and 70% were female. The NCT IOP was on average 3.9 mm Hg lower in the right eye, and 3.5 mm Hg lower in the left eye compared with DCT. (p<.001) In the right eye the Bland-Altman analysis showed the 95% agreement interval between the two tonometers was -2.5 to 10.4 mmHg and in the left eye -3.0 to 9.9 mmHg.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IOP from NCT and DCT should not be used interchangeably because their level of disagreement includes clinically important discrepancies of up to 10 mm Hg.</p>","PeriodicalId":46347,"journal":{"name":"Open Ophthalmology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018127/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Ophthalmology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101812010104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) is touted to be the most accurate tonometer for Intraocular Pressure (IOP) measurement. Non-Contact "air puff" Tonometry (NCT) may be the most commonly used tonometer for screening of IOP. Elevated IOP is important to exclude in patients presenting with headache or vision loss.

Objective: To determine the agreement between DCT and NCT.

Methods: The IOP of adult patients 50 years of age or older presenting with headache or vision loss for possible temporal artery biopsy were prospectively recorded. NCT and DCT measurements were obtained within thirty minutes. The right eye IOP measurements were compared with paired t-test, and Bland- Altman plot analysis. The left eye IOP measurements were subsequently analyzed for confirmation of results.

Results: There were 106 subjects with complete right eye data, and 104 subjects with complete left eye data. The average age was 72 years, and 70% were female. The NCT IOP was on average 3.9 mm Hg lower in the right eye, and 3.5 mm Hg lower in the left eye compared with DCT. (p<.001) In the right eye the Bland-Altman analysis showed the 95% agreement interval between the two tonometers was -2.5 to 10.4 mmHg and in the left eye -3.0 to 9.9 mmHg.

Conclusion: The IOP from NCT and DCT should not be used interchangeably because their level of disagreement includes clinically important discrepancies of up to 10 mm Hg.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动态等高线眼压测量与非接触式眼压测量在老年头痛或视力丧失患者中的比较。
背景:动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)被认为是测量眼压(IOP)最准确的眼压计。非接触式“吹气式”眼压计(NCT)可能是筛查眼压最常用的眼压计。排除出现头痛或视力丧失的患者眼压升高是很重要的。目的:确定DCT与NCT的一致性。方法:前瞻性记录50岁及以上以头痛或视力丧失为主要表现的颞动脉活检患者的IOP。NCT和DCT测量在30分钟内完成。右眼IOP测量值采用配对t检验和Bland- Altman图分析进行比较。随后分析左眼IOP测量值以确认结果。结果:右眼资料完整的106例,左眼资料完整的104例。平均年龄72岁,女性占70%。与DCT相比,NCT右眼IOP平均降低3.9 mm Hg,左眼平均降低3.5 mm Hg。结论:NCT和DCT的IOP不应该互换使用,因为它们的差异水平包括临床上重要的10mmhg差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Open Ophthalmology Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, letters and guest edited single topic issues in all important areas of experimental and clinical research in ophthalmology, including use of ophthalmological therapies, devices and surgical techniques. The Open Ophthalmology Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and making them freely available to researchers worldwide.
期刊最新文献
A Narrative Review of Morquio Syndrome: Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) Type IV MGrx - A Novel Multi-modal Thermal Device for Treating Moderate to Severe Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Dry Eye Determinants of Refractive Errors on School-going Children Attending Ophthalmic Clinic of AlMoosa Hospital in Saudi Arabia A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Convergence Insufficiency Prevalence and Management Options Photodynamic and Anti-VEGF Therapy for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy - ‘Real World’ Outcomes in a Caucasian Population
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1