Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Can J Ophthalmol. 2006 Dec;41(6):722-6.

Comparison of Proview phosphene tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Author information

1
Eye Foundation of Kansas City, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, MO 64108, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

To compare intraocular pressures obtained using a handheld pressure phosphene tonometer (PPT) (Proview, Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tampa, Fla.) with Goldmann applanation tonometry.

METHODS:

Comparative case series of 30 randomly selected patients.

RESULTS:

The readings obtained with the pressure phosphene tonometer display a higher mean and a larger standard deviation than those obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Differences between PPT and GAT readings tended to decrease as a function of increased Goldmann levels. The relation of Proview and Goldmann readings (r = 0.32) and the scatterplot were not consistent with the hypothesis that the 2 methods are equivalent.

INTERPRETATION:

Our results indicate that the pressure phosphene-type handheld tonometry method, which does not appear to provide an accurate and consistent measure of intraocular pressure, is substantially less reliable than the Goldmann method.

PMID:
17224953
DOI:
10.3129/i06-065
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center