ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
A comparison of three different tonometric methods in the measurement of intraocular pressure in the pediatric age group.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Agreement of Intraocular Pressure from Four Mechanistically Different Tonometers in the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Clinical Trial.Ophthalmology. GlaucomaTrial
- Distribution of and factors associated with intraocular pressure in school-age Chinese children: findings from a large-scale longitudinal study.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- 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
- Different Effects of Aging on Intraocular Pressures Measured by Three Different Tonometers.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimTo compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with non-contact tonometry (NCT), Icare rebound tonometry (IRT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in pediatric cases and to examine the effect of topical anesthesia on measurements obtained using IRT. MATERIALS AND
methodsPediatric cases in a healthy general condition and with ophthalmic examination findings within normal limits were included in the study. IOP measurements were taken with NCT and IRT devices in all cases. Topical anesthesia was subsequently applied, and IOP measurements were then repeated using IRT and GAT tonometer devices. Differences between measurements were subjected to statistical analysis.
resultsOne hundred ten eyes of 55 patients, 27 male, with a mean age of 11.44 ± 2.31 years (7-17) were included. Mean pre-anesthesia IOP values were 16.47 ± 2.89 mmHg with NCT and 17.49 ± 2.57 mmHg with IRT. Mean IOP values after topical anesthesia were 16.91 ± 2.17 mmHg with IRT and 15.51 ± 2.41 mmHg with GAT. IOP measurement values obtained with all three devices exhibited positive correlation with central corneal thickness values. Statistically significant correlation was present in terms of IOP measurement values between all three devices. However, IOP values obtained with the three devices exhibited statistically significant differences. The application of topical anesthesia caused a statistically significant decrease in IRT measurements; however, statistically significant this small change (0.58 mmHg) in recorded IOP would not be considered clinically significant.
conclusionIOP measurements obtained with NCT, IRT and GAT devices in the pediatric age group correlate with one another, but differ from one another in a statistically significant manner. Application of topical anesthesia affects IRT measurements; however, these small changes would not be considered clinically significant.
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.