Purpose: To assess the agreement among four types of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements: IOP obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer (IOP-GAT),IOP obtained by an air-puff tonometer (Nidek NT-510)(IOP-NCT), the non-corrected IOP obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (IOP-Corvis) and the biomechanically corrected IOP obtained by the Corvis ST (bIOP-Corvis) in healthy patients with a broad spectrum of IOP values. Methods: This prospective, observational study recruited 113 healthy individuals. Each patient underwent IOP evaluation via GAT, Nidek NT-510 and Corvis ST. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).Tonometer intermethod agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The difference between the four IOP measurements was correlated against corneal (CCT) and age with Pearson’s correlation test. Results: IOP-Corvis showed the highest values (16.59 ± 3.08 mmHg),followed by IOP-NCT (16.05 ± 3.43 mmHg), IOP-GAT (15.62 ± 3.08 mmHg) and bIOP-Corvis (15.10 ± 2.67 mmHg).There were statistically significant differences in IOP measurements among all the ANOVA pairwise comparisons except between IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis (p = 0.07),as well as between IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT (p = 0.25). Bland Altman analysis revealed a notable bias (all p < 0.05) among IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT,IOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT of 0.51, −0.97, −0.43, −1.49, −0.95, 0.53 mmHg respectively. We observed a strong correlation of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis with CCT and patient age. Conclusion: Compared with GAT and Nidek NT-510, the Corvis-derived IOPs were recorded either the highest as IOP-Corvis or the lowest as bIOP-Corvis. Even if the differences among the tonometers were relatively small, the IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT and GAT were not interchangeable.
NuyenBMansouriK. Detecting IOP fluctuations in Glaucoma patients. Open Ophthalmol J2016; 10: 44–55.
2.
SmedowskiA, et al. Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2014; 55:666–673.
3.
HagishimaM, et al. Effect of corneal astigmatism on intraocular pressure measurement using ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2010; 248: 257–262.
4.
YaoedaK, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure adjusted by central corneal thickness or corneal biomechanical properties as measured in glaucomatous eyes using noncontact tonometers and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Clin Ophthalmol2016; 10: 829–834.
5.
CookJA, et al. Surveillance of ocular hypertension study G. Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology2012; 119: 1552–1557.
6.
StamperRL. A history of intraocular pressure and its measurement. Optom Vis Sci2011; 88 : E16–E28.
7.
LiuJRobertsCJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg2005; 31: 146–155.
8.
TejwaniS, et al. A cross-sectional study to compare intraocular pressure measurement by sequential use of goldman applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and corvis STIndian J Ophthalmol2015; 63: 815–820.
9.
OncelB, et al. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol2009;19:936–941.
10.
NeuburgerM, et al. Recovery of corneal hysteresis after reduction of intraocular pressure in chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol2010; 149 : 687–688.
11.
HongJ, et al. A new Tonometer-the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2013; 54 : 659–665.
12.
HuseynovaT, et al. Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol2014;157:885–893.
13.
JodaAA, et al. Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2016; 19: 943–953.
14.
VinciguerraR, et al. Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg2016; 32: 550–561.
15.
EsenF, et al. Double-organ bias in published randomized controlled trials of glaucoma. J Glaucoma2016; 25: 520–522.
16.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–310.
LudbrookJ. Confidence in altman-bland plots: a critical review of the method of differences. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol2010; 37: 143–149.
19.
VinciguerraR, et al. Corneal biomechanics and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure in primary open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension and controls. Br J Ophthalmol2020; 104: 121–126.
20.
SedaghatMR, et al. Biomechanically-Corrected intraocular pressure compared to pressure measured with commonly used tonometers in normal subjects. Clin Optom (Auckl)2019; 11: 127–133.
21.
Salouti, et al. Comparison among ocular response analyzer, corvis ST and goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy children. Int J Ophthalmol2018; 11: 1330–1336.
22.
Nakao, et al. Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using corvis ST and comparison of the corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. PLoS One2020; 15: e0238395.
23.
MatsuuraM, et al. Repeatability of the novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis STTransl Vis Sci Technol2019; 8: 48.
24.
LuebkeJ, et al. Intraocular pressure measurements with Corvis ST in comparison with applanation tonometry and tomey non-contact tonometry. Int Ophthalmol2019; 39: 2517–2521.
25.
ReznicekL, et al. Evaluation of a novel scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol2013; 97: 1410–1414.
26.
LeungCKSYeCWeinrebRN. An ultra-high-speed scheimpflug camera for evaluation of corneal deformation response and its impact on IOP measurement. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2013; 54: 2885–2892.
27.
CookJA, et al. Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology2012; 119: 1552–1557.
28.
TonnuP-A, et al. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability. Br J Ophthalmol2005; 89: 845–850.
WhitacreM. M.SteinR. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol1993; 38: 1–30.
33.
WhitacreM. M.SteinR. A.HassaneinK. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol1993; 115: 592–596.
34.
MansooriTBalakrishnaN. Effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure and comparison of topcon CT-80 non-contact tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Clin Exp Optom2018; 101: 206–212.
35.
Cartwright NEKnoxTyrerJRMarshallJ. Age-related differences in the elasticity of the human cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2011; 52: 4324–4329.
36.
ElsheikhA, et al. Characterization of age-related variation in corneal biomechanical properties. J R Soc Interface2010; 7: 1475–1485.
37.
ElsheikhAWangDPyeD. Determination of the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea. J Refract Surg2007; 23: 808–818.
38.
DamjiKFMuniRHMungerRM. Influence of corneal variables on accuracy of intraocular pressure measurement. J Glaucoma2003; 12: 69–80.
