ArticleScientific reports2021
Accuracy and reliability of measurements obtained with a noncontact tono-pachymeter for clinical use in mass screening.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of ocular surface assessment outcomes between healthy controls and patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome: a meta-analysis of the literature.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical Assessment of Automated Non-Contact Tonometer: Interchangeability with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Repeatability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the reliability and accuracy of the noncontact CT-1P tonopachymeter (Topcon, Japan) in terms of intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT). One hundred sixty-three healthy participants and 33 patients with open angle glaucoma were enrolled. IOPs were measured by CT-1P (T-IOP) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (G-IOP), and CCTs were measured by the CT-1P (T-CCT) and an ultrasound pachymeter (US-CCT). Both CCT instrument-adjusted (T-IOP-C) and unadjusted T-IOPs (T-IOP-NC) were included. Pearson correlation coefficients and biases assessed with Bland-Altman analysis with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for reliability evaluation. Intrasession repeatability was excellent for both T-IOP (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.91) and T-CCT (ICC 0.98). Intersession reproducibility was also excellent for T-CCT (ICC 0.94). T-IOP-NC and T-IOP-C both showed significant correlations with G-IOP (r = 0.801, P < 0.001 and r = 0.658, P < 0.001, respectively). T-CCT was also strongly correlated with US-CCT (r = 0.958; P < 0.001). T-IOP-NC and T-IOP-C both showed a positive bias (1.37 mmHg, 95% CI [1.14, 1.61] and 2.77 mmHg, 95% CI [2.49, 3.05], respectively). T-CCT showed a negative bias of - 17.3 µm (95% CI [-18.8, - 15.8]). With cautious interpretation, the CT-1P may offer good feasibility for IOP and CCT measurement in screening centers.
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.