Trial reportOphthalmology. Glaucoma
Assessing Agreement of Intraocular Pressure from Four Mechanistically Different Tonometers in the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01677507 (Aqueous Humor Dynamic Components That Determine Intraocular Pressure Variance), which is not on this 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.
Aqueous Humor Dynamic Components That Determine Intraocular Pressure Variance
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Portable AI-powered scanning slit-light device for low-cost eye disease screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) by four mechanistically different tonometers in healthy participants from the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Aqueous Humor Dynamics clinical trial using the mean difference estimation, equivalence statistics, and adjusting for proparacaine's effects on IOP.
designMulticenter open-label clinical trial in healthy adults (NCT01677507).
participantsEnrolled were 122 participants (55.2 ± 8.8 years; 92 women and 30 men), 121 of which had measurements with and without proparacaine.
methodsParticipants from 3 sites had their IOPs measured with iCare rebound tonometer (RT), ocular response analyzer corneal-compensated (CC), pneumatonometer (PN), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Intraocular pressure readings with RT and CC were collected with and without proparacaine.
main outcome measuresEffect sizes and agreement in IOP measurements from the four tonometers was analyzed with Data analysis using Bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation, Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoAs), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and robust equivalence two 1-sided t-tests in tandem with null hypothesis significance testing. Data analysis using bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation was used to analyze differences in IOP readings from RT and CC before and after administering proparacaine.
resultsData analysis using Bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation, LoA, and CCC showed greatest effect size and poorest agreement between PN and the other tonometers. The lowest mean difference was seen when comparing GAT and CC. However, LoA and CCC found the strongest agreement between RT and GAT. Two 1-sided tests revealed tonometers can be considered equivalent to one another at ± 2 mmHg, except for PN. After applying proparacaine, IOP decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) by RT (1.2 ± 1.9 mmHg right eye [OD]; 1.1 ± 1.7 mmHg left eye [OS]), and CC (1.4 ± 1.8 mmHg OD; 1.3 ± 2.3 mmHg OS).
conclusionsWhen adjusted for proparacaine's effect on IOP, 3 tonometers were equivalent between each other when determined by equivalence statistical testing with equivalence bounds ± 2 mmHg. The PN reads >2 mmHg higher than RT, CC, or GAT. Therefore, when comparing IOP data from different tonometers, one should consider that not all tonometer measurements are interchangeable and the proparacaine effect should be considered. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.