ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2019
Repeatability of the Novel Intraocular Pressure Measurement From Corvis ST.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Investigating intraocular pressure fluctuations using corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology tonometry (CST) with varied resting intervals.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of Tonometry Methods in Keratoconic Eyes Following Intracorneal Ring Segments Implantation: A Comparative Study.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Observational
- Development and validation of an intuitive biomechanics-based method for intraocular pressure measurement: a modal analysis approach.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Article
- Influence of Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology Tonometry on Intraocular Pressure.Ophthalmology science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the repeatability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with the Corvis ST (CST) and the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).
methodsA total of 141 eyes from 141 subjects were studied, including 35 healthy eyes and 106 glaucomatous eyes. All subjects underwent IOP evaluations with Goldmann applanation tonometer, CST, and ORA. With CST, biomechanical corrected IOP (bIOP) was calculated; bIOP is purported to be less dependent on biomechanical properties. For ORA, corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) were derived. The repeatability of the various IOP values was assessed using the coefficient of variance (CV) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsThe CV with bIOP (5.5 ± 3.1: mean ± standard deviation) was significantly smaller than the CVs measured with IOPg (7.3 ± 4.3) and IOPcc (7.2 ± 4.4). ICC values were 0.90, 0.80, and 0.86 with IOPg, IOPcc, and bIOP, respectively.
conclusionsThe bIOP showed a better prevision and repeatability for IOP measurement. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The bIOP measurement from CST had a better reproducible than IOPcc measurement from ORA.
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.