评估眼压测量替代装置的一致性和可变性:一项比较研究

IF 1.8 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical ophthalmology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.2147/opth.s438358
Chen-Wei Lin, Jin-Jhe Wang, Chien-Hsiung Lai, Chau-Yin Chen, Ing-Chou Lai
{"title":"评估眼压测量替代装置的一致性和可变性:一项比较研究","authors":"Chen-Wei Lin, Jin-Jhe Wang, Chien-Hsiung Lai, Chau-Yin Chen, Ing-Chou Lai","doi":"10.2147/opth.s438358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement is critical in diagnosing and managing eye conditions. This study aims to assess the comparability of three alternative devices for measuring IOP: Noncontact tonometer, Icare rebound tonometer, and Tono-Pen. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study included 172 adult participants (87 males and 85 females) who underwent IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) assessments. IOP was measured using Noncontact (Canon TX-20), Icare (Icare TA01i), and Tono-Pen (Tonopen XL). CCT was measured with the built-in pachymetry of the Noncontact tonometer. Correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses were conducted to assess the relationships and agreements between these tonometers. Participants were grouped based on IOP and CCT levels. The mean of the standard deviation of the three tonometer results was calculated to evaluate measurement result variability. One-way analysis of variance was conducted for comparing between the groups. Results: IOP measurements among the three devices were not significantly different, indicating their comparability. Correlation analysis revealed strong correlations between the tonometers. Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement, with the Icare rebound tonometer and Tono-Pen exhibiting narrower limits of agreement. Furthermore, IOP levels influenced measurement result variability, with higher IOP levels associated with greater variance. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the alternative devices examined can provide reliable IOP measurements. It highlights the potential of these alternative devices for IOP measurement. These findings have implications for clinical practice, offering practitioners additional tools for accurate IOP assessment. Keywords: intraocular pressure, tonometer, noncontact, icare, Tono-Pen","PeriodicalId":10442,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology","volume":"31 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Agreement and Variability Among Alternative Devices for Intraocular Pressure Measurement: A Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Chen-Wei Lin, Jin-Jhe Wang, Chien-Hsiung Lai, Chau-Yin Chen, Ing-Chou Lai\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/opth.s438358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement is critical in diagnosing and managing eye conditions. This study aims to assess the comparability of three alternative devices for measuring IOP: Noncontact tonometer, Icare rebound tonometer, and Tono-Pen. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study included 172 adult participants (87 males and 85 females) who underwent IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) assessments. IOP was measured using Noncontact (Canon TX-20), Icare (Icare TA01i), and Tono-Pen (Tonopen XL). CCT was measured with the built-in pachymetry of the Noncontact tonometer. Correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses were conducted to assess the relationships and agreements between these tonometers. Participants were grouped based on IOP and CCT levels. The mean of the standard deviation of the three tonometer results was calculated to evaluate measurement result variability. One-way analysis of variance was conducted for comparing between the groups. Results: IOP measurements among the three devices were not significantly different, indicating their comparability. Correlation analysis revealed strong correlations between the tonometers. Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement, with the Icare rebound tonometer and Tono-Pen exhibiting narrower limits of agreement. Furthermore, IOP levels influenced measurement result variability, with higher IOP levels associated with greater variance. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the alternative devices examined can provide reliable IOP measurements. It highlights the potential of these alternative devices for IOP measurement. These findings have implications for clinical practice, offering practitioners additional tools for accurate IOP assessment. Keywords: intraocular pressure, tonometer, noncontact, icare, Tono-Pen\",\"PeriodicalId\":10442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"31 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s438358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s438358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:眼内压(IOP)测量是诊断和治疗眼病的关键。本研究旨在评估测量IOP的三种替代设备的可比性:非接触式眼压计、Icare回弹眼压计和Tono-Pen。患者和方法:一项横断面研究包括172名成人参与者(87名男性和85名女性),他们接受了IOP和中央角膜厚度(CCT)评估。使用Noncontact (Canon TX-20)、Icare (Icare TA01i)和Tono-Pen (Tonopen XL)测量IOP。CCT采用内置的非接触式眼压计测厚仪测量。通过相关系数和Bland-Altman分析来评估这些眼压计之间的关系和一致性。根据IOP和CCT水平对参与者进行分组。计算三个眼压计结果的标准差的平均值,以评估测量结果的可变性。组间比较采用单因素方差分析。结果:三种仪器的IOP测量值无显著性差异,具有可比性。相关分析显示血压计之间有很强的相关性。Bland-Altman分析显示出良好的一致性,Icare回弹眼压计和Tono-Pen显示出较窄的一致性限制。此外,IOP水平影响测量结果的变异性,IOP水平越高,方差越大。结论:本研究表明,所检查的替代装置可以提供可靠的IOP测量。它突出了这些替代眼压测量设备的潜力。这些发现对临床实践具有启示意义,为从业者提供了准确评估眼压的额外工具。关键词:眼压,眼压计,非接触式,icare, Tono-Pen
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessing Agreement and Variability Among Alternative Devices for Intraocular Pressure Measurement: A Comparative Study
Purpose: Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement is critical in diagnosing and managing eye conditions. This study aims to assess the comparability of three alternative devices for measuring IOP: Noncontact tonometer, Icare rebound tonometer, and Tono-Pen. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study included 172 adult participants (87 males and 85 females) who underwent IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) assessments. IOP was measured using Noncontact (Canon TX-20), Icare (Icare TA01i), and Tono-Pen (Tonopen XL). CCT was measured with the built-in pachymetry of the Noncontact tonometer. Correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses were conducted to assess the relationships and agreements between these tonometers. Participants were grouped based on IOP and CCT levels. The mean of the standard deviation of the three tonometer results was calculated to evaluate measurement result variability. One-way analysis of variance was conducted for comparing between the groups. Results: IOP measurements among the three devices were not significantly different, indicating their comparability. Correlation analysis revealed strong correlations between the tonometers. Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement, with the Icare rebound tonometer and Tono-Pen exhibiting narrower limits of agreement. Furthermore, IOP levels influenced measurement result variability, with higher IOP levels associated with greater variance. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the alternative devices examined can provide reliable IOP measurements. It highlights the potential of these alternative devices for IOP measurement. These findings have implications for clinical practice, offering practitioners additional tools for accurate IOP assessment. Keywords: intraocular pressure, tonometer, noncontact, icare, Tono-Pen
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical ophthalmology
Clinical ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
499
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Optimal Duration of Monocular Occlusion to Eliminate Fusion Effect in Intermittent Exotropia Time Savings Using a Digital Workflow versus a Conventional for Intraocular Lens Implantation in a Corporate Chain Hospital Setting The Prevalence and Severity of Acquired Blepharoptosis in US Eye Care Clinic Patients and Their Receptivity to Treatment Fungal Keratitis: Diagnosis, Management, and Recent Advances Evaluation of Foveal Avascular Zone After Strabismic and Anisometropic Amblyopia Therapy in Saudi Children Using Optic Coherence Tomography Angiography: A Cohort Study
×
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