ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2019
Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the VAE-NT index: a novel biomechanical parameter for distinguishing subclinical corneal abnormalities.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Using Three Different Methods (Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT), Corvis ST, and iCare) Following Penetrating Keratoplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A Mechanical Evaluation of a Robot-Assisted Cutting Cornea Based on Force Response.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Agreement of intraocular pressure measurement with Corvis ST, non-contact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in children with ocular hypertension and related factors.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Intraocular pressure after myopic laser refractive surgery measured with a new Goldmann convex prism: correlations with GAT and ORA.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Corvis ST tonometer with the updated software in glaucoma practice.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Association Between Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Glaucoma.Current diabetes reports · 2021Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and Corvis ST (CST) in healthy subjects.
methodsIn a prospective, observational study, IOP measurements with GAT (GAT-IOPc), ORA (IOPcc), DCT (DCT-IOP), and CST (bIOP) were performed and analyzed in 94 healthy subjects.
resultsMean age of the participants was 45.6 ± 17.2 years (range 18 to 81 years). Mean GAT-IOPc was 12.9 ± 2.4 mmHg, mean DCT-IOP was 16.1 ± 2.6 mmHg, and mean IOPcc was 15.6 ± 3.3 mmHg. DCT-IOP and IOPcc were significantly higher than GAT-IOPc (
conclusionAll tonometry devices showed a good agreement of biomechanical corrected IOP values with GAT-IOPc. As no influence of CCT on IOPcc, DCT-IOP, and bIOP was detectable, the used correction algorithms appear to be appropriate in these tonometers in the clinical setting. The highest agreement was found between GAT-IOPc and bIOP. However, bIOP weakly correlated with participants' age. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of bIOP for IOP measurement.
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.