Clinical evaluation of five portable tonometers.
Clinical evaluation of five portable tonometers.
复制标题
五种便携式眼压计的临床评估。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
John C. Galanis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Wingert;Carl J. Bassi;W. Mcalister;John C. Galanis
背景
将使用五种市售便携式眼压计（Keeler Pulsair 2000、Tomey Pro-Ton、Tono-Pen XL、Perkins和Shiotz）获得的眼内压（IOP）测量值与使用Goldmann眼压计测量的IOP进行比较，以预测仪器准确性是否证明在所有或特定情况下使用便携式仪器替代Goldmann是合理的。
方法
共评估了31例患者（59只眼）。技术的顺序是随机的，除了在每种情况下，首先进行戈德曼眼压计和最后进行Shiotz眼压计。检查者对所有其他IOP测量结果均设盲。相关和回归分析被用来预测Goldmann眼压从其他便携式眼压计读数。此外，将压力读数的差异与平均压力读数进行比较。
结果
进行平均值、相关性、回归方程和差异评分箱形图的比较，以确定哪种技术更准确。根据所用方法的不同，结果略有不同。与Goldmann IOP相比，使用便携式眼压计获得的所有IOP均显示出显著的相关性和回归方程。相关性范围从Keeler Pulsair的r = 0.75到Schiotz的r = 0.66。三种眼压计（Tono-Pen、Schiotz和Pro-Ton）显示出对Goldmann IOP的小幅显著低估。
结论
所有便携式眼压计都能够准确预测Goldmann IOP。虽然发现三个眼压计平均低估了Goldmann IOP，但这些结果可以通过添加低估或使用最佳拟合回归方程来校正。
BACKGROUND
Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with five commercially available portable tonometers (Keeler Pulsair 2000, Tomey Pro-Ton, Tono-Pen XL, Perkins, and Shiotz) were compared to IOPs measured with a Goldmann tonometer in order to predict whether instrument accuracy justified substitution of a portable instrument for the Goldmann in all or specific circumstances.
METHODS
A total of 31 patients (59 eyes) were assessed. The order of techniques was random except that in each case Goldmann tonometry was performed first and Shiotz tonometry was performed last. Examiners were masked to all other IOP measurements. Correlation and regression analyses were used to predict Goldmann IOP from the other portable tonometer readings. In addition, the difference in pressure readings was compared to mean pressure readings.
RESULTS
Comparisons of means, correlations, regression equations, and box plots of difference scores were performed to determine which techniques were more accurate. The results varied slightly depending on the method used. All IOPs obtained with portable tonometers showed significant correlation and regression equations compared to the Goldmann IOPs. The correlation ranged from (r = 0.75) for the Keeler Pulsair to (r = 0.66) for the Schiotz. Three tonometers (Tono-Pen, Schiotz, and the Pro-Ton) showed a small significant underestimation of the Goldmann IOPs.
CONCLUSIONS
All portable tonometers were able to accurately predict Goldmann IOPs. While three of the tonometers were found to underestimate Goldmann IOP on average, these results can be corrected by either adding the underestimation or by using the best fitting regression equation.