Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2025
Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer, corvis ST and a conventional non-contact airpuff tonometer in eyes with previous myopic refractive surgery and correlation with corneal biomechanical parameters.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal refractive changes following orbital decompression in thyroid eye disease: dominant role of axial configuration and globe position with contributions from surgical technique and corneal biomechanics.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparison of corneal biomechanics after SMILE versus LASEK in moderate to high myopia with relatively thin corneas: a retrospective comparative study.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Intraocular pressure measurement in keratoconus: a narrative review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the agreement among four types of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements: IOP obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer (IOP-GAT),IOP obtained by an air-puff tonometer (Nidek NT-510) (IOP-NCT), the non-corrected IOP obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (IOP-Corvis) and the biomechanically corrected IOP obtained by the Corvis ST (bIOP-Corvis) in eyes having undergone myopic refractive surgery and correlate their differences with corneal biomechanical parameters.
methodsThis prospective, observational study recruited 104 non-glaucomatous, post-myopic refractive surgery eyes. Each patient underwent IOP evaluation via GAT, Nidek NT-510 and Corvis ST. Difference in IOP readings was assessed by ANOVA analysis. Tonometer intermethod agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The difference between the IOP measurements was correlated against corneal thickness(CCT), age, gender, type of refractive surgery and corneal biomechanics with mixed effects linear regression analysis.
resultsbIOP-Corvis showed the highest values (14.77 ± 2.3 mmHg), followed by IOP-NCT (13.95 ± 2.6 mmHg), IOP-GAT (13.46 ± 2.9 mmHg) and IOP-Corvis (12.56 ± 3.1 mmHg). There were statistically significant differences in IOP measurements among all the ANOVA pairwise comparisons. Bland Altman analysis revealed a notable bias (all P < 0.01) among bIOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT, IOP-NCT and IOP-Corvis, IOP-NCT and IOP-GAT and IOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT. We observed a strong correlation of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT with patient age (P < 0.001), CCT (P < 0.001), of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis, with type of refractive surgery (P = 0.012), age (P = 0.050), CCT (P < 0.001), the stiffness parameter at first applanation(SP-A1) (P = 0.008), Ambrozio Relational Thickness horizontal (ARTh) (P < 0.001), of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT, with CCT (P < 0.001), ARTh (P < 0.001), Deformation Amplitude Ratio (DA Ratio) (P = 0.035), of the difference between IOP-NCT and IOP-Corvis, with type of refractive surgery (P = 0.002), CCT (P = 0.031), SP-A1 (P = 0.014), ARTh (P < 0.001), of the difference between IOP-NCT and IOP-GAT with ARTh (P < 0.001) and of the difference between IOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT with SP-A1 (P = 0.027).
conclusionThe different IOP values obtained by Corvis ST, NCT and GAT tonometers do not have a steady relationship in their measurements between them and cannot be considered interchangeable in post-myopic refractive surgery eyes. These differences from each pair of IOP measurements are correlated with corneal biomechanics,CCT and age. Our results suggest that the smaller degree of myopic correction may lead to a lower difference between the tonometers' readings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40478442What 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.