UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Dynamic contour tonometry: handheld versus slit-lamp-mounted


Knecht, P B; Bosch, M M; Menke, M N; Bachmann, L M; Funk, J; Kaufmann, C (2009). Dynamic contour tonometry: handheld versus slit-lamp-mounted. Ophthalmology, 116(8):1450-1454.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the newly developed handheld dynamic contour tonometer (hh-DCT) with the established slit-lamp-mounted DCT (sl-DCT) in terms of agreement for intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) measurements, intraobserver variability, and tonography effect. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty eyes of 50 healthy volunteers were examined with the hh-DCT and sl-DCT. METHODS: A paired t test was performed to analyze differences in IOP and OPA readings. Measurements were compared for bias and agreement according to the method of Bland and Altman. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to compare intraobserver variability. A mixed model analysis was performed to assess a possible tonography effect. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The differences in IOP and OPA measurements, intraobserver variability, and tonography effect between the hh-DCT and the sl-DCT were examined. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in IOP (sl-DCT-hh-DCT: 0.1+/-1.43 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.31 to 0.5, P = 0.63) or OPA (sl-DCT-hh-DCT: -0.1+/-0.52 mmHg, 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.01, P = 0.08) measurements were detected. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.1 with the limits of agreement of IOP measurement differences ranging from -2.71 to +2.90 mmHg. With regard to IOP readings obtained by sl-DCT, hh-DCT overestimated IOPs less than 15.6 mmHg and underestimated IOPs more than 15.6 mmHg. ICCs calculated for IOP readings were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.8-0.92) for hh-DCT and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90) for sl-DCT. ICCs for OPA readings were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) for hh-DCT and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.8-0.91) for sl-DCT. Comparing the ICCs revealed no statistically significant difference between the devices with regard to IOP and OPA measurements (P = 0.53 and P = 0.93, respectively). Mixed model analysis of 3 consecutive IOP measurements revealed a decrease in IOP of 0.5 mmHg after each measurement in both devices, which was not significant between the 2 methods (P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: IOP and OPA readings obtained by the novel hh-DCT were shown to be strongly concordant with measurements obtained by the sl-DCT device. The hh-DCT may be a valuable alternative to the sl-DCT in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: To compare the newly developed handheld dynamic contour tonometer (hh-DCT) with the established slit-lamp-mounted DCT (sl-DCT) in terms of agreement for intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) measurements, intraobserver variability, and tonography effect. DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic technology. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty eyes of 50 healthy volunteers were examined with the hh-DCT and sl-DCT. METHODS: A paired t test was performed to analyze differences in IOP and OPA readings. Measurements were compared for bias and agreement according to the method of Bland and Altman. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to compare intraobserver variability. A mixed model analysis was performed to assess a possible tonography effect. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The differences in IOP and OPA measurements, intraobserver variability, and tonography effect between the hh-DCT and the sl-DCT were examined. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in IOP (sl-DCT-hh-DCT: 0.1+/-1.43 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.31 to 0.5, P = 0.63) or OPA (sl-DCT-hh-DCT: -0.1+/-0.52 mmHg, 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.01, P = 0.08) measurements were detected. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.1 with the limits of agreement of IOP measurement differences ranging from -2.71 to +2.90 mmHg. With regard to IOP readings obtained by sl-DCT, hh-DCT overestimated IOPs less than 15.6 mmHg and underestimated IOPs more than 15.6 mmHg. ICCs calculated for IOP readings were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.8-0.92) for hh-DCT and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90) for sl-DCT. ICCs for OPA readings were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) for hh-DCT and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.8-0.91) for sl-DCT. Comparing the ICCs revealed no statistically significant difference between the devices with regard to IOP and OPA measurements (P = 0.53 and P = 0.93, respectively). Mixed model analysis of 3 consecutive IOP measurements revealed a decrease in IOP of 0.5 mmHg after each measurement in both devices, which was not significant between the 2 methods (P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: IOP and OPA readings obtained by the novel hh-DCT were shown to be strongly concordant with measurements obtained by the sl-DCT device. The hh-DCT may be a valuable alternative to the sl-DCT in clinical practice.

Citations

1 citation in Web of Science®
4 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 25 Nov 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic and Policlinic for Internal Medicine
04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Ophthalmology Clinic
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2009
Deposited On:25 Nov 2009 09:14
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:34
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0161-6420
Publisher DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.02.006
PubMed ID:19500848
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-24428

Download

[img]
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations