ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020
Agreement and repeatability of Icare ic100 tonometer.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluctuations in intraocular pressure before and after femtosecond laser pretreatment for cataract surgery.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Outcomes of the Icare Rebound Tonometer versus the Gold Standard Tonometer in Measuring Intraocular Pressure among Mzuzu University Students, Malawi.Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences · 2023Article
- Assessing Agreement and Variability Among Alternative Devices for Intraocular Pressure Measurement: A Comparative Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Updates on the Diagnosis and Management of Glaucoma.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2022Review
- How to Measure Intraocular Pressure: An Updated Review of Various Tonometers.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo find the agreement and repeatability of Icare ic100 tonometer.
methodsWe included 150 subjects above the age of 18 years for this cross-sectional, multicenter study with intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥7 mmHg. After the initial ophthalmic examination, two masked examiners took five IOP measurements using three different instruments; Icare ic100, Icare TA01i, and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in only one eye of the participants. Comparison of agreement of IOP using different instruments was quantified with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using the two-way random effects models of absolute agreement and Cronbach's alpha. The test-retest variability of the instruments was assessed by deriving repeatability coefficient (RC) and coefficient of variation (CV).
resultsAgreement between the tonometers across the different IOP groups had no statistically significant difference in their mean IOP. Icare ic100 was found to have good reliability across all IOP groups (ICC value >0.78) when compared with Icare TA01i. In comparison with GAT, Icare ic100 showed good reliability across all IOP groups (ICC >0.87) except >16 to <23 mmHg group where it showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.52). Icare ic100 showed good repeatability with RC and CV of 2.67 and 4.89, respectively.
conclusionIcare ic100 rebound tonometer can measure IOP with relatively small measurement error and can provide a reliable and repeatable reading in comparison with GAT across a wide pressure range without hampering corneal health.
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.