<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Kaufmann C</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Bachmann LM</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Thiel MA</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2004</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">PURPOSE
The dynamic contour tonometer (DCT; Pascal tonometer) is a novel tonometer designed to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) independent of corneal properties. The purpose of this study was a comparison of the DCT with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) with respect to mean of IOP readings, the influence of ocular structural factors on IOP readings, and both intra- and interobserver variability, in a large group of healthy subjects.


METHODS
In a prospective study of 228 eyes, IOP measurements by GAT and DCT were compared, and the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature, axial length, and anterior chamber depth were analyzed. To evaluate intra- and interobserver variability, IOP was measured in eight eyes by four observers.


RESULTS
There was a high concordance between the IOP readings obtained by DCT and GAT. However, IOP readings were consistently higher with DCT than with GAT (median difference: +1.7 mm Hg, interquartile range [25th-75th percentile] = 0.8-2.7 mm Hg). In contrast to GAT, multivariable regression analysis showed no significant effect of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, astigmatism, anterior chamber depth, and axial length on DCT readings. For repeated measurements the intraobserver variability was 0.65 mm Hg for the DCT and 1.1 mm Hg for the GAT (P = 0.008). Interobserver variability was 0.44 mm Hg for the DCT and 1.28 mm Hg for the GAT (P = 0.017).


CONCLUSIONS
IOP measurements by DCT are highly concordant with IOP readings obtained from GAT but do not vary in CCT and have a lower intra- and interobserver variability. DCT seems to be an appropriate method of tonometry for routine clinical use.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://sonar.ch/global/documents/197832</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1167/iovs.04-0018</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/15326129</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:source>Investigative ophthalmology &amp; visual science. - 2004</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">Astigmatism</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Corneal Topography</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">Humans</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">Intraocular Pressure</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Multivariate Analysis</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns6="xml" ns6:lang="en">Observer Variation</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns7="xml" ns7:lang="en">Prospective Studies</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns8="xml" ns8:lang="en">Reference Values</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns9="xml" ns9:lang="en">Reproducibility of Results</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns10="xml" ns10:lang="en">Tonometry, Ocular</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns11="xml" ns11:lang="en">Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry.</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>