Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40803602›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmology. Glaucoma

Assessing Agreement of Intraocular Pressure from Four Mechanistically Different Tonometers in the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Clinical Trial.

Max Liu, David M Reed, Shan Fan, Arash Kazemi, Vikas Gulati, Arthur J Sit, Sayoko E Moroi, Carol B Toris

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01677507 phase4completednot on this map

Aqueous Humor Dynamic Components That Determine Intraocular Pressure Variance

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MichiganRan2012 to 2016Enrolled135ConditionsGlaucoma, HealthyArmsVariation in eye pressure response to timolol and latanoprost treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

8 authors.

Max LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Havener Eye Institute, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
David M ReedDepartment of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Havener Eye Institute, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
Shan FanUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Stanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Omaha, Nebraska.
Arash KazemiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Vikas GulatiUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Stanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Omaha, Nebraska.
Arthur J SitDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Sayoko E MoroiDepartment of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Havener Eye Institute, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Carol B TorisDepartment of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Havener Eye Institute, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; University of Nebraska Medical Center, Stanley M. Truhlsen Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Omaha, Nebraska. Electronic address: ctoris@unmc.edu.

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MCHR)UL1TR000433 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2012 to 2016
$49.9M
VIVARIUM MODULEP30EY007003 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI David Antonetti · 1987 to 2026
$17.6M
The Ohio State University Vision Sciences Research Core Program (OSU-VSRCP)P30EY032857 · NEI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Sayoko E Moroi · 2022 to 2026
$3.6M
Aqueous Humor Dynamic Components that Determine Intraocular Pressure VarianceR01EY022124 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MOROI, SAYOKO E · 2012 to 2022
$3.6M
Biomechanical Interplay between Optic Nerve Head and Peripapillary ScleraR01EY032621 · NEI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LIU, JUN · 2022 to 2025
$1.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000433NEI NIH HHS P30 EY007003NEI NIH HHS P30 EY032857NEI NIH HHS R01 EY022124NEI NIH HHS R01 EY032621
6 · The paper itself

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

Intraocular PressureTonometry, OcularAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleGlaucomaHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsGlaucomaIntraocular pressureProparacaineTonometers

Identifiers

PMID40803602
PMCPMC12822827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.