ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2024
Evaluation of agreement of IOP measurements by Tono-Vera tonometer to Goldmann applanation tonometry.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2024. 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of the new Tono-Vera rebound tonometer (Reichert Inc, Buffalo, NY) compared to Goldmann Applanation Tonometry. Methods: This prospective, observational, cross-sectional study was designed in accordance with ANSI Z80.10-2014 and ISO 8612-2009 guidelines for tonometer comparison. Intraocular Pressure (IOP) was measured by Goldmann Applanation and Tono-Vera on 160 eyes of 160 subjects. Corneal Astigmatism and Central Corneal Thickness were also measured. A single investigator (CN) conducted all measurements. The average of two measurements from each tonometer was used in the analysis. Bland-Altman plots, total least squares regression analysis, and simple linear regression were used to evaluate agreement between the tonometers. Results: Average IOP values from Goldmann Applanation and Tono-Vera were not significantly different (19.17 and 19.03 respectively, p=0.40, paired t-test). The total least squares regression analysis indicated strong agreement between the two tonometers (slope +0.97, offset +0.49 mmHg, standard deviation 2.11 mmHg). There were 2 IOP measurement pairs that exceeded the ± 5 mmHg limits of agreement required in ANSI Z80.10-2014 and ISO 8612-2009, which is within the range of acceptability specified in the standards. Conclusion: We evaluated IOP measurements by Tono-Vera Rebound Tonometer vs Goldmann Applanation Tonometry for eyes with a wide range of IOP values and found no statistically significant differences in the results. Tono-Vera meets the requirements of ANSI Z80.10-2014 and ISO 8612-2009, demonstrating accuracy comparable to Goldmann tonometry.
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.