Fernandes P, Díaz-Rey J A, Queirós A, Gonzalez-Meijome J M, Jorge J
Department of Physics (Optometry), School of Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005 Sep;25(5):436-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00327.x.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) using a new induction/impact rebound tonometer (ICare) in comparison with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (AT). The left eyes of 46 university students were assessed with the two tonometers, with induction tonometry being performed first. The ICare was handled by an optometrist and the Goldmann tonometer by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the ICare rebound tonometer with applanation tonometry (AT) (p < 0.05). The mean difference between the two tonometers was 1.34 +/- 2.03 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.) and the 95% limits of agreement were +/-3.98 mmHg. A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <3 mmHg between the ICare and the AT. In the present population the ICare overestimates the IOP value by 1.34 mmHg on average when compared with Goldmann tonometer. Nevertheless, the ICare tonometer may be helpful as a screening tool when Goldmann applanation tonometry is not applicable or not recommended, as it is able to estimate IOP within a range of +/-3.00 mmHg in more than 80% of the population.
本研究的目的是评估一种新型的感应/冲击式回弹眼压计（ICare）与Goldmann压平眼压计（AT）相比测量眼压（IOP）的准确性。对46名大学生的左眼使用这两种眼压计进行评估，先进行感应眼压测量。ICare由验光师操作，Goldmann眼压计由眼科医生操作。在本研究中，将ICare回弹眼压计与压平眼压计（AT）进行比较时发现了统计学上的显著差异（p < 0.05）。两种眼压计之间的平均差异为1.34 +/- 2.03 mmHg（平均值 +/- 标准差），95%的一致性界限为 +/-3.98 mmHg。差异的频率分布表明，在超过80%的病例中，ICare和AT之间的眼压读数相差 <3 mmHg。在当前人群中，与Goldmann眼压计相比，ICare平均高估眼压值1.34 mmHg。然而，当Goldmann压平眼压测量不适用或不被推荐时，ICare眼压计作为一种筛查工具可能会有所帮助，因为它能够在超过80%的人群中在 +/-3.00 mmHg的范围内估计眼压。
