Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37485456›Full record

ArticleJournal of current glaucoma practice

Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma.

Pedro Henrique Alves Soares, Rafael de Oliveira Santos, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes Filho, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes Neto, João Antonio Prata Junior

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of current glaucoma practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pedro Henrique Alves SoaresDepartment of Ophthalmology, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9939-5334
Rafael de Oliveira SantosDepartment of Ophthalmology, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8158-8728
Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes FilhoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6074-3450
Sebastião Pimenta Moraes NetoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0433-6869
João Antonio Prata JuniorDepartment of Ophthalmology, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1472-0960
Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation prism and TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. Material and methods: Patients with no ocular pathologies, except ametropia (until ± 4 D) or IOP of <30 mm Hg without signs of glaucoma by optic disc structural analysis by fundus biomicroscopy. The IOP was measured sequentially using the traditional cone and the TonoSafe®, according to a randomization list to determine which device would be used first. The measurements from the right and left eyes were compared separately. Since there was no statistical difference, both eyes were considered in this study. Results: A total of 385 eyes of 194 patients with a mean age of 66.4 ± 11.2 years old were included. The mean IOP with conventional prism was 14.2 ± 3.6 and 14.3 ± 3.6 mm Hg with TonoSafe Conclusion: No statistical difference was found in IOP was measured with conventional prism or TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. Clinical significance: The data provided by our study support the efficacy and safety of the disposable tonometer compared to the Goldman tonometer in measuring IOP in patients without glaucoma. How to cite this article: Soares PHA, Santos RDO, Filho CRADM,

Indexed as

Cross-sectional studiesDisposable tipIntraocular pressureTonometry

Identifiers

PMID37485456
PMCPMC10357021
OpenAlexW4383907501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.