ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2016
[Ease of handling of first and second generation rebound tonometers].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of anterior chamber stability with a cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device versus the soft-shell technique.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Trial
- SALUS-a non-inferiority trial to compare self-tonometry in glaucoma patients with regular inpatient intraocular pressure controls: study design and set-up.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Article
- [Application of rebound self-tonometry for measurements in a supine position].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Article
- Self-monitoring of intraocular pressure using Icare HOME tonometry in clinical practice.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the ease of handling of two rebound tonometers, which are designed for self-measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) in a clinical setting by untrained patients.
methodsAfter self-measurement of the IOP with the rebound tonometers iCare ONE and iCare HOME, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire containing different subitems concerning ease of operation using a visual analog scale (1 = very good to 5 = very poor). Moreover, the feasibility and duration of measurement were tested.
resultsA total of 147 subjects participated in this study. The mean score for general handling ability was 2.79 ± 1.01 for the iCare ONE and 1.85 ± 0.87 for the iCare HOME (p < 0.001). The evaluation of the subitems sense of safety (iCare ONE: 2.71 ± 1.03 and iCare HOME: 1.87 ± 0.81, p < 0.001) and comfort of measurement (iCare ONE: 2.07 ± 1.01 and iCare HOME: 1.66 ± 0.72, p < 0.001) also showed a significant discrepancy between the two tonometers. Participants needed significantly less time for a single valid measurement when using the iCare HOME tonometer (mean 66.14 ± 61.54 s) compared to the iCare ONE tonometer (mean 81.54 ± 69.51 s, p < 0.001).
conclusionsA better handling of the iCare HOME rebound tonometer in comparison to the iCare ONE tonometer can be deduced on the basis of the subjective assessments of patients and the shorter duration of measurements. Moreover, the iCare HOME received a significantly better evaluation for all subitems. The accuracy of measurements using the iCare HOME still needs to be clarified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.