ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Easyton® transpalpebral versus Perkins applanation tonometry in different populations.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement and Clinical Utility of the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation, Tono-Pen, and Icare in Healthy Eyes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the new transpalpebral Easyton® tonometer and Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT) in three different clinical populations.
methodsThe participants of this prospective study were 84 subjects divided into the groups: 22 healthy children (G1), 42 healthy adults (G2), and 20 adult patients with primary open angle glaucoma (G3). The data recorded in 84 eyes of these subjects were age, sex, gender, central corneal thickness (CCT), and axial length (AL). In all eyes, IOP was determined in the same examination room by the same experienced examiner using Easyton® and PAT in random order.
resultsMean differences in IOP readings between Easyton® and PAT were 0.45 ± 1.97 (p = 0.295), - 0.15 ± 2.13 (p = 0.654), - 1.65 ± 3.22 (p = 0.033), and - 0.018 ± 2.50 mmHg (p = 0.500) in the groups G1, G2, G3, and whole sample (G4), respectively. Correlations between Easyton® and PAT IOP values were 0.668 (p = 0.001) for G1, 0.463 (p = 0.002) for G2, 0.680 (p < 0.001) for G3, and 0.605 (p < 0.001) for G4. Moderate to good agreement between the two tonometers was found in all groups according to intraclass correlation coefficients, which were 0.794 (p < 0.001) for G1, 0.632 (p < 0.001) for G2, 0.809 (p < 0.001) for G3, and 0.740 (p < 0.001) for G4. The lower and upper limits of agreement between the devices were - 5.1 and 4.7 mmHg, respectively, in the complete group. No correlation was noted between CCT or AL and the Easyton® IOP measurements.
conclusionIOP measurements obtained with Easyton® and PAT show an acceptable level of agreement mainly in healthy individuals, recommending it for IOP screening in children and in patients in which PAT measurement may be impared as patients with hemifacial spasms, corneal irregularities, or reduced mobility. It is not recommended for glaucoma patients follow-up.
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.