ArticleBMC ophthalmology2019
Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05523622 (Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement With the Novel TonoVera Device With Other Commonly Used Devices), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 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.
Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement With the Novel TonoVera Device With Other Commonly Used Devices
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics, Climate Lag Effects, and Environmental Associations of Vegetation Cover Across the Western Sichuan Plateau During 2001-2024.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Intraocular Pressure Measurement across Different Tonometry Methods and Experience Levels.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2026Observational
- Short-term intraocular pressure changes following intravitreal aflibercept 8 mg versus 2 mg in diabetic macular edema: a prospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Impact of Ocular Massage on Intraocular Pressure and Schlemm Canal Dimensions in Healthy Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Results of a Targeted Glaucoma Screening Project Conducted Outside Formal Healthcare Settings in Croatia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Secondary ocular hypertension as an adverse effect of treatment with intravitreal dexamethasone implant: A retrospective Swedish cohort study.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- A novel corneal indentation device for comparison of corneal tangent modulus before and after FS-LASIK in vivo.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Agreement and repeatability of intraocular pressure measurements between SK-5500B and Icare IC200 tonometers in sitting and supine positions: a comparative study.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Clinical Validation of M-TONX: A Novel Combo Rebound Tonometer and Pachymeter.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Standing, Sitting, Prone, and Supine Positions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the Impact of PRESERFLO MicroShunt on Intraocular Pressure in Porcine Eyes Ex Vivo Using Infusion Pump System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A comparison of iCare and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective study.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Repeatability assessment of anterior segment measurements in myopic patients using an anterior segment OCT with placido corneal topography and agreement with a swept-source OCT.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- A comparison of intraocular pressure measurement using SUOER SW-500 rebound tonometer and conventional reusable Goldmann prisms.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Association of trabecular meshwork height with steroid-induced ocular hypertension.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Assessing Agreement and Variability Among Alternative Devices for Intraocular Pressure Measurement: A Comparative Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Distribution and associated factors of intraocular pressure in the older population: Tehran Geriatric Eye Study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Audit of outcomes following attendance at the City West drive-through IOP glaucoma clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- The analysis of the glaucoma screening event results obtained during the World Glaucoma Week in Zagreb, Croatia.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- A deep dive into the latest European Glaucoma Society and Asia-Pacific Glaucoma Society guidelines and their relevance to India.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) is essential for glaucoma patients. Many factors such as central corneal thickness (CCT) can affect the accuracy of IOP measurement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of IOP measured by non-contact tonometer (NCT), iCare pro rebound tonometer (iCare), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in different IOP group.
methodsThis was a Hospital-based cross-sectional study. Two hundred subjects were enrolled in this study. All subjects underwent IOP measurement using an NCT-iCare-GAT sequence. Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation analysis were performed using SPSS 17.0 software. The influence of CCT on each IOP measurement methods was evaluated by linear regression analysis.
resultsThe mean difference (Δ) of NCT-GAT did not differ from (Δ) iCare-GAT in IOP < 10 and 10-21 mmHg group. However, (Δ) NCT-GAT was significantly higher than (Δ) iCare-GAT in IOP 22-30 and > 30 mmHg group (P < 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis showed significant agreement between the three devices (P < 0.01). IOP measurements of the three methods were significantly correlated with CCT (P < 0.01).
conclusionsICare pro shows a higher agreement with GAT over a wide range of IOP compared with NCT. The consistency between the three tonometers was similar in a low and normal IOP range. However, NCT shows a greater overestimate of IOP in moderate and higher IOP group. The variability of IOP measurement affected by CCT is NCT > iCare pro > GAT.
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.