Wittenberg S
J Am Optom Assoc. 1977 Feb;48(2):196-207.
Paired non-contact tonometer readings were taken on patients at the Boston City Hospital Eye Clinic before and after routine vision care that included Goldmann tonometry. The variability of NCT readings was determined and comparisons made between readings obtained with the NCT and Goldmann instruments. The regression equation relating the pre-Goldmann NCT findings (N1), to the Goldmann (G), was N1 = 1.01G + 1.97; and the equation relating the post-Goldmann NCT findings (N2), to the Goldman was N2 = .94G + 1.70. The N1 mean was 2.06 mm. higher than the mean G, while the N2 mean was .58 mm. higher than the mean G. The correlation coefficients and standard deviation of the differences for the two comparisons were, .88, 3.91, and .93, 3.07, respectively. The Goldmann findings therefore were seen to agree more closely with the NCT findings taken after them. The linear regression and correlation coefficients between the NCT and the Goldmann were generally in good agreement with those of prior studies, although the standard deviations of the differences between findings were larger in this study. This result is not surprising since no attempt was made to train Goldmann operators to criterion or to limit variability induced by differing observer criteria or by the use of only one Goldmann operator. The operators of the Goldmann tonometer had varying degrees of training as residents in ophthalmology. Interestingly, the agreement between pre-Goldmann NCT and post-Goldmann NCT findings was not good. This suggested that the taking of the Goldmann findings themselves may have had a significant effect on the tonometric readings and that the considerable time that frequently took place between the two sets of NCT readings could have affected the value. The standard deviation of the differences between pre- and post-Goldmann readings on the same patient was 3.27 as compared to that for paired readings which was 2.28. The data also showed a much better agreement between the NCT and the rechecked Goldmann findings than between the initial Goldmann findings and the rechecked Goldmann findings, indicating that where discrepancies existed, it was more likely that they were due to the Goldmann instrument.
在波士顿市医院眼科诊所，对患者在接受包括Goldmann眼压测量法在内的常规视力护理前后，使用配对非接触眼压计进行读数测量。确定了非接触眼压计（NCT）读数的变异性，并对使用NCT和Goldmann仪器获得的读数进行比较。将Goldmann眼压测量之前的NCT测量结果（N1）与Goldmann测量结果（G）相关的回归方程为N1 = 1.01G + 1.97；将Goldmann眼压测量之后的NCT测量结果（N2）与Goldmann测量结果相关的方程为N2 = 0.94G + 1.70。N1的平均值比G的平均值高2.06毫米，而N2的平均值比G的平均值高0.58毫米。两次比较的相关系数和差异标准差分别为0.88、3.91和0.93、3.07。因此，可以看出Goldmann测量结果与之后进行的NCT测量结果更为接近。NCT与Goldmann之间的线性回归和相关系数总体上与先前研究的结果相符，尽管本研究中测量结果之间差异的标准差更大。这个结果并不奇怪，因为没有尝试将Goldmann操作人员训练到标准水平，也没有试图限制因不同观察者标准或仅使用一名Goldmann操作人员而导致的变异性。Goldmann眼压计的操作人员作为眼科住院医师，接受的培训程度各不相同。有趣的是，Goldmann眼压测量之前的NCT测量结果与之后的NCT测量结果之间的一致性并不好。这表明获取Goldmann测量结果本身可能对眼压测量读数有显著影响，并且两组NCT读数之间经常出现的较长时间间隔可能影响了测量值。同一患者Goldmann眼压测量前后读数差异的标准差为3.27，而配对读数的标准差为2.28。数据还显示，NCT与重新检查的Goldmann测量结果之间的一致性比初始Goldmann测量结果与重新检查的Goldmann测量结果之间的一致性好得多，这表明在存在差异的情况下，更有可能是由于Goldmann仪器导致的。
